Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

DUNHAM BRIDGE (AMENDMENT) BILL

Considered; to be read the Third time.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND

Carstairs-Edinburgh Rail Services

Mr. Hood: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received in favour of reinstating rail services from Carstairs to Edinburgh; and if he will make a statement.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton): My right hon. Friend has received a small number of representations from local interested parties about rail services from Carstairs to Edinburgh. The detailed operation of the railways, including the precise level of services to be offered on individual lines, is, however, a matter for British Rail.

Mr. Hood: The Minister is aware that Carstairs rail junction used to be known as the gateway to Scotland. Is he further aware that since InterCity ceased to stop trains at Carstairs, my 50,000 Clydesdale constituents have been deprived of rail services to the capital city of Scotland? Will he reflect on what he has told the House and arrange a meeting—a meeting that I would want to attend—to encourage InterCity to reinstate rail services between Carstairs and Edinburgh? That would not only open up employment and cultural pursuits for my 50,000 constituents but open up the Clyde valley for tourism.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The detailed operation of the railways, including the precise level of services on individual lines is, at present, a matter for British Rail. British Rail is encouraged to tailor its service to meet the markets concerned. The Secretary of State for Transport, because of his overall responsibilities for railways, may, however, give British Rail such directions as he thinks fit, with regard to recommendations made by transport users' consultative committees. I will certainly pass on the hon. Gentleman's representations to him.

Mr. Hood: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of that reply, I beg t o give notice that I shall seek to raise this matter on the Adjournment at the earliest opportunity.

"Scotland in the Union"

Mr. Canavan: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps he has taken to assess public opinion in Scotland on his White Paper, "Scotland in the Union—a Partnership for Good", Cm. 2225.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Ian Lang): The response to the White Paper "Scotland in the Union—a Partnership for Good" has been generally very favourable.

Mr. Canavan: If the Secretary of State is still afraid to take up my suggestion of a referendum along the lines set out in my Bill, will he take up an alternative suggestion to test the White Paper proposal for an enhanced role for the Scottish Grand Committee? Will the Government table a substantive motion for a full-day debate in Scotland in that Committee and give the Opposition parties the opportunity to table, debate and vote on amendments to it so that the Government can ascertain, and act upon, the majority view of the elected representatives of the people of Scotland, most of whom want a real Scottish parliament rather than the Mickey Mouse White Paper, which proposes no genuine transfer of voting power from this place?

Mr. Lang: A referendum was not part of the proposals that we included in the White Paper, and we do not contemplate proceeding in that direction; nor was the suggestion that we should establish a separate Scottish parliament. Central to the White Paper was our commitment to maintaining the integrity of this Parliament of the United Kingdom. As to the views of other parties, I shall be consulting in due course and there will be opportunities, if any amendments to Standing Orders are required, for such matters to be debated.

Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: As the Government flounder for a new bank holiday, may I suggest that it should be on I May? That would give the Opposition the impression that it was union day, when it was actually the day on which the treaty of Union 1707 came into force and it is one of the most important circumstances in our history.

Mr. Lang: My hon. and learned Friend makes an interesting suggestion. It is worth noting that the May day holiday has existed in Scotland for more than 100 years. It existed long before the Labour party and it will probably long outlast the Labour party.

Mr. Salmond: Is not one of the key arguments in "Partnership for Good" for a new relationship within the United Kingdom, with Scotland's subordinate position being changed? Has the Secretary of State deployed that new relationship with the oil tax changes announced in the Budget? Did he know about them before they were announced? Does he now understand that they will cost thousands of jobs in Scotland? Has he done anything since the Budget to try to alter the changes—or has he just been, in Lord Boothby's term, the scullery maid of the Cabinet attempting to clear up the mess that his political betters have left behind?

Mr. Lang: Only an hon. Member with the inferiority complex of the hon. Gentleman would regard Scotland's role as in any way subordinate. Scotland is a full partner in the United Kingdom and our White Paper "Scotland in the Union—a Partnership for Good" reasserts that. Within this unitary Parliament and within this United


Kingdom, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer is responsible for taxation matters. I am sure that he will take careful note of the hon. Gentleman's point.

Mr. Gallie: Does my right hon. Friend agree that there is no better commendation of the White Paper than the words of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe) who, at a recent Scottish Grand Committee meeting, pleaded for the Minister responsible for health to be present? For the benefit of those on the Opposition Front Bench, will my right hon. Friend explain that the implementation of "Scotland in the Union" would permit that Minister to participate in future Scottish Grand Committees? Does he agree that all hon. Members should join the hon. Member for Maryhill in welcoming our right hon. and learned Friend from another place?

Mr. Lang: My hon. Friend has identified an important point in the White Paper. Its proposals include providing an opportunity for greater scrutiny of Scottish Office Ministers, including the opportunity to ask questions of Ministers from another place. I am sure that hon. Members on both sides of the House will be interested in pursuing that opportunity.

Mr. Galloway: Is not it true that the White Paper "Scotland in the Union—a Partnership for Good" has been received in our country with all the joy that a paperback edition of "Satanic Verses" might have been received had it arrived in down-town Tehran? Is not it also true that the long labour to produce that White Paper has been followed by what looks to be an equally long period of "due course"—as the Secretary of State puts it—before the Government take stock of the Opposition's responses?
Frankly, is not it an excuse for the Government doing nothing—nothing at all—about the democratic deficit in our country? Why does not the right hon. Gentleman do the simple thing and allow the Scottish people to give their opinion in a democratic referendum that would be worthy of a Government?

Mr. Lang: Perhaps I do not get about as much as the hon. Gentleman, but I do not know what sells in down-town Tehran. However, I can tell him that the publication of the White Paper received an extremely favourable response throughout Scotland. I feel sure that when we bring more detailed proposals before the House, they will find favour with the Opposition.

Sir David Steel: As the proposals in the White Paper, however welcome, are really quite minor, why has it taken so long to implement them? When will we have that first opportunity, to which the right hon. Gentleman keeps referring, to question him in the Scottish Grand Committee?

Mr. Lang: The implementation of a number of the proposals in the White Paper is already under way. I said at the time of publication that I envisaged that any amendments to the Standing Orders of the House would start in the next parliamentary Session. Between now and then, there will be an opportunity to consider what amendments might be necessary, what views people of other parties put forward, and how best to proceed.

Mr. McLeish: Is not it a disgrace that the Secretary of State should even hint at his concern for public opinion? Why is it that in Scotland, with so many people opposed

to water privatisation, the right hon. Gentleman is willing to spend vast sums of taxpayers' money behind closed doors to further that issue?
Why is it that when public opinion in Scotland wants young people to be trained, the right hon. Gentleman reneges on his commitment to 7,500 potential YT trainees? This is not about a partnership for good, this is an organised hypocrisy—a conspiracy against the citizen. The Opposition believe that trust and faith in good government in Scotland will be restored only when we have a Parliament run by Labour at Westminster and a parliament in Edinburgh run by Scots for Scots.

Mr. Lang: Not only are the hon. Gentleman's figures on water and youth training places wrong, but he knows that they are wrong. He has had the facts pointed out to him and he knows how misleading he has been on those matters. However, the water case at any rate will be aired in future questions when the answer will be spelt out to him.

Water Privatisation

Mr. Wray: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many letters he has received about water privatisation in Scotland; and if he will make a statement.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Sir Hector Monro): My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has received 4,834 individual responses to the consultation on water and sewerage services, and 1,237 other letters about the future of the services since 17 November last year.

Mr. Wray: Does the Minister agree that chaos and misery have been created south of the border with 8,000 disconnections in 1989–90, 21,000 in 1990–92 and another 8,000 in 1991–92 in the Thames water authority? Those are shocking figures. Seven water authorities have doubled their disconnections, while salaries for managers and directors have increased. Will the Government never learn that the people of Scotland do not want privatisation or franchising? They want to keep their water in public hands.

Sir Hector Monro: The hon. Gentleman, like so many of his hon. Friends, jumps to conclusions. We have put forward eight suggestions and we are quite prepared to consider other methods of sorting out water in Scotland after the unitary authorities have been introduced. At present, as the hon. Gentleman knows, there is no disconnection in Scotland. We shall have to wait and see what legislation is required. But, in the meantime, I hope that the hon. Gentleman realises that local authorities in Scotland are finding plenty of ways of collecting water charges without the need for disconnection.

Mr. Bill Walker: Will my hon. Friend confirm that among the representations that he has received, there have been representations from me, which have clearly suggested that the Government of Scotland must address the fact that we no longer have a means of measuring our entitlement from the public purse, because there is no allocation to England and our share of zero is exactly that—zero? Consequently, we must examine ways in which private money can reach the Scottish water industry in order, first, to take it out of the public sector borrowing


requirement and, secondly, so that we do not use money that would otherwise be spent on hospitals and other important matters in our constituencies.

Sir Hector Monro: Yes, my hon. Friend makes a number of important points and his representations on the consultation document are being carefully analysed. What he has said is correct. A great deal of money has to be spent in future and the ways and means of providing it is part of the reason that we are dealing with the responses to the consultation document.

Mr. Tom Clarke: As the Secretary of State is leaving the Under-Secretary of State to answer all the difficult questions, will the hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) tell us why the cost of privatisation has gone up so rapidly since the £50,000 estimate was given to my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, Central (Mr. McLeish) last year? Why, having spent £100,000 on consultants, are the Government planning to spend £400,000, and where is the money going? If the latest estimate of £2·5 billion to meet EC conditions is accepted by the Government, why do not they meet the local authorities, which are perfectly capable of responding to that figure? Above all, since my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Provan (Mr. Wray) asked the right hon. Gentleman to answer the question, will the Under-Secretary ask the Secretary of State to do what the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland did, and drop the whole crazy idea of water privatisation?

Sir Hector Monro: I certainly have not forgotten the hon. Gentleman's involvement in the matter, because for some months I have had a postcard on my desk showing the hon. Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke) in a rather droochit boat, trying to catch something better than a cold. His hon. Friend the Member for Fife, Central has been misleading Scotland about the cost of water in the past 24 hours. His radio discussion this morning was disgraceful, as he said that water costs had been reduced to £2·5 billion and he is totally wrong. He misread his question, which dealt solely with the European Community directive, and my answer, and he forgot the £2·5 billion required for infrastructure in Scotland, so he was wrong in both cases and he shot himself badly in both feet. The money for Quayle Munro, including the intial tranche and going through the consultation responses, was budgeted for and the rest of the money is certainly there to pay the salaries of the civil servants who are dealing with water, whichever route we decide to take.

Education

Mrs. Gorman: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on educational standards in Scotland.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Scottish education enjoys a high reputation, which is well deserved. The Government's programme of educational reform in Scotland will improve standards further, through changes in curriculum and assessment, teacher development and appraisal, the devolution of management to schools and more and better information to parents. All those initiatives are under way and yielding results.

Mrs. Gorman: I thank my hon. Friend for his reply. Does he agree that an important part of the improvements in education that the Government are determined to

introduce is more involvement for parents in the choice of their children's schools, and that we are looking forward to the day when parents are as welcome in schools as they are in Jenners in Princes street, Edinburgh or in Marks and Spencer? Will he outline the ways in which his Department is going about giving parents greater opportunity to contribute and to choose their children's schools in Scotland, so that we can learn about it down here in the south?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I thank my hon. Friend and strongly agree. I do not believe that a little information is a dangerous thing—parents need more glasnost, not less. We have consulted on better information for parents and have received about 300 responses. We are going to take action in that connection and, by early summer, we shall have drawn up a revised circular and regulations. The two sets of regulations will be put before Parliament and will come into effect early in August. Four of the relevant subjects that we intend to cover are pupil attendance and truancy rates; school exam results; school leaver destinations; and school costs, so we are definitely taking action.

Mr. McFall: The hon. Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) could learn more from her area. I have a letter in front of me from a demoralised head teacher in that area, who is complaining about the Government's interference, is weary of being blamed for everything, including the moral decline of society. He states unequivocally that the people responsible are those who have been in power for the past 14 years. Does not the Minister think that the hon. Lady could learn from Scottish education, not least over testing, where changes to the national curriculum in England and Wales followed a successful campaign by parents and teachers in Scotland? Does he agree that comprehensive education has resulted in increased standards and qualifications in Scotland and that such a system, which does not reject 80 per cent. of our young people at a tender age, is good for the aspirations and talents of young people and for Scottish society? Does not the hon. Lady have a lot to learn from Scottish society and education?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: All European educational systems have a certain amount to learn from each other. Testing in Scotland is designed to operate as part of our distinctive five to 14 development programme, but the principles underlying our policies are the same north and south of the border—to ensure that pupils are regularly tested against a national standard and at defined stages of the curriculum and that the results are reported to parents. Standards have risen and we have made a lot of effort, through assessment and achievement programmes, research, regular inspection and reports by inspectors—who do an extremely good job. We have information on the level of success of pupils in standard grade, higher and other awards. We have national testing, which will give the teacher a view of a pupil's progress compared with national standards—[HON. MEMBERS: "Rubbish!"] It certainly is not rubbish and it is being delivered.

Mr. Raymond S. Robertson: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what were the figures for reported cases of truancy in Scottish secondary schools in (a) 1980, (b) 1985, (c) 1990 and (d) 1992; and if he will make a statement.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: No accurate truancy figures are available for those years, but we plan to lay before Parliament this summer regulations that will require education authorities to collect comprehensive information on attendance and truancy rates, and to include those figures in school handbooks.

Mr. Robertson: Is my hon. Friend aware that, in a recent speech made in my constituency, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said that truancy and juvenile crime were inextricably linked? Will my hon. Friend give an assurance that he will examine more imaginative ways of combating truancy in schools, including raising the level of parental fines and introducing the suspension or reduction of family allowance payments to the parents of wilful and persistent truants?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I agree that truancy can not only blight education, but because the incidence of youth crime. The Education (Scotland) Act 1980 includes a provision for parents who are brought before a court in this connection——

Mrs Gorman: rose——

Hon. Members: There goes a truant.

Madam Speaker: Order. I have a good sense of humour, but I think that we ought to proceed with Question Time.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The penalty for parents who allow their children to play truant regularly is substantial: a fine of up to £1,000, one month in prison or both. I must tell my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Robertson), however, that I do not consider reducing family allowance payments made to the parents of persistent truants to be the best option at present. Many other measures can be taken, including involving parents at a very early stage; I support that.

Mr. Watson: I am glad to see that a truant from Billericay has managed to return to the fold after a brief disappearance—[HON. MEMBERS: "She is missing again."] Ah, she is missing again.
Will the Minister call for a report from the appropriate authorities, following yesterday's truancy from a Scottish airport by the international crook and contributor to Tory party funds, Asil Nadir? Will he tell us whether Mr. Nadir's passport was withdrawn—if not, why not?—and whether Group 4 Security was responsible for guarding the airport?

Madam Speaker: Order. I think that the hon. Gentleman is on the wrong question. The question relates to truancy in Scotland, and I have just given permission for one hon. Member to leave. Let us move on.

Local Government Reform

Mr. Dalyell: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what proportion of the £55,000 paid to Touche Ross for a report by Anna Capaldi on the financing of local government reform he has asked to be returned to the Scottish Office.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Allan Stewart): My right hon. Friend has not asked for the return of any of the fee paid to Touche

Ross for its report on the financing of local government reform; nor does he intend to. The consultants delivered a helpful report on an acceptable time scale.

Mr. Dalyell: Ought the taxpayer to pay up in full for a report that is so flawed that Bruce Mackie, the Conservative leader of Tayside council, describes it as having been blown out of the water by the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy?

Mr. Stewart: The hon. Gentleman has secured an Adjournment debate about the matter on Friday. [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer the question."] I am coming to the hon. Gentleman's question. In that debate, the issues that he has raised can be debated more fully
A wide variety of comments have been made about the Touche Ross report; however, we consider its conclusions broadly acceptable, and believe that they provide a basis for the reorganisation of Scottish local government into a single-tier system.

Mr. Kynoch: When examining the figures in the Touche Ross report and considering local government reform in Scotland, will my hon. Friend bear in mind that it is not simply a question of the number of local authorities concerned? It is also a question of the way in which those authorities will conduct their business. Is it not important for us to have well-run authorities, delivering local services efficiently?

Mr. Stewart: My hon. Friend is, of course, absolutely right. What will matter is exactly what local authorities do in practice under the new structure. My hon. Friend will also be interested to know that in his own region of the country, Aberdeen City district council, which is run by the Labour party, said of the Touche Ross report that
Many of the cost assumptions which can be checked have been shown not to be unreasonable, while further sensitivity analysis has been carried out.
That gives the lie to some of the fantastic statements that have emanated from Opposition Members on the issue.

Mr. Tom Clarke: If statements are regarded as fantastic, why does the Minister not only publish the full report but all the papers and evidence so that it is available in the public domain and people can make up their own minds? Above all, instead of this flimsy response to local government problems and a reference to an Adjournment debate, important though that is but which few people will hear about, why can there not be a proper commission and a proper review of local government, such as that which is taking place in England?

Mr. Stewart: First, I am astonished by the hon. Gentleman's question. We have published the full Touche Ross report. I am sorry that he has not read it.

Mr. Tom Clarke: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker: Order. I cannot take points of order at this stage.

Mr. Clarke: The Minister has misunderstood the question.

Madam Speaker: Order. I am sure that the Minister has got the question.

Mr. Stewart: I must repeat that the Touche Ross report has been published in full. Some of the fantastic figures that the hon. Gentleman has put forward in the press


about the costs of local government reorganisation are as realistic as the chances of democracy in the Monklands Labour party.

Mr. Wallace: I noticed that in answer to the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) the Minister damned the report with faint praise. He said that its conclusions were broadly acceptable, but he did not say that they were accurate. So that we have an informed debate, not one in which fantastic figures fly around, can the Minister tell us what the cost of savings will be for each of the four different structures that were announced in the Government's consultative document, on the basis of any revised figures that he has received from Touche Ross?

Mr. Stewart: We have not received any revised figures from Touche Ross. We made it absolutely clear in the consultation paper that we would look at the figures in the light of further evidence. That is to be found in paragraphs 5.14 and 5.15 of the consultation paper. Of course we are looking at the Touche Ross figures in the light of the variety of comments upon them, even though many of them have been mutually contradictory. When we publish the White Paper we shall publish the estimates of cost associated with the preferred structure.

Mr. John Marshall: Can my hon. Friend tell the House whether the Touche Ross report referred to the benefits of compulsory competitive tendering, which has enabled local authorities to give the same or a better service, at much less cost to the taxpayer? Did the Touche Ross report also refer to the cost of nepotism, as practised in Monklands?

Mr. Stewart: The Touche Ross report did not refer to the second matter raised by my hon. Friend, although it has been widely referred to in other ways. I agree with my hon. Friend about the immense benefits that local authorities can gain by pursuing compulsory competitive tendering. That is proved by the gains that many local authorities, even under the present structure, have achieved by pursuing compulsory competitive tendering in Scotland.

Mr. Dalyell: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, it was extremely far-seeing of you to give us an Adjournment debate on Friday.

Secretary of State (Letters)

Mr. Graham: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many constituents of Renfrew, West and Inverclyde have written to him at the Scottish Office in the last eight months.

Mr. Lang: Correspondence with the Scottish Office is not normally categorised by constituency, except when received from Members of Parliament. I have received 19 letters from the hon. Gentleman in the past eight months.

Mr. Graham: I warn the Secretary of State that he will be receiving more letters from my constituents and from those of my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman). Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that more than 20,000 of our womenfolk and constituents are living in anguish and anger over the results—or, rather, the lack of results—of smear tests? Those women are calling on the Government to ensure

that the inquiry involves no cover-up; that there is no lack of funds available to ensure that the tests are carried out speedily; and that this blunder will never ever be repeated in the health service. Will the Government ensure that there is no cover-up; that the results are circulated quickly to ensure that our constituents can sleep in peace; that the women affected are treated expeditiously, with no lack of funds to the national health service?

Mr. Lang: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will be aware that I—in my statement to the House last Thursday—and my noble Friend the Minister of State, Scottish Office have made clear the importance that we attach to the need to have this matter concluded as quickly and effectively as possible. I can tell the hon. Gentleman that nine other health boards, in collaboration with the Argyll and Clyde health board, are allowing their laboratory facilities to be used. A large batch of results should be sent out by the middle of May and most of the women involved will have heard the results of their first re-examination by the beginning of June.

Mrs. Fyfe: Although the Opposition were satisfied with the Minister's immediate response last Wednesday, questions have certainly arisen since. Why were any slides sent to a small private laboratory rather than to other NHS laboratories within Scotland, as was clearly the Minister's intention last Wednesday? How many slides were sent to that small private laboratory and why was there delay in taking up the Minister's own directive of last Wednesday that the matter should be dealt with within the health service?
Given the investigation of Inverclyde Royal hospital, questions arise about the entire screening programme for the whole of Scotland. Will the Secretary of State give an assurance this afternoon that he personally will see to it that confidence in the service is restored by ensuring that money is spent on any technology necessary to reduce the possibility of error to the minimum and by reviewing the fact that there was no legal requirement for laboratory staff to be trained in screening slides? As it was apparently possible for one laboratory to have no system for double checking, will the right hon. Gentleman ensure that such a system is created throughout the health service and that women have an answer to their question—what is the point of preventive medicine if it does not prevent?

Mr. Lang: Some 2,000 slides have been processed and the results are now known. A further 1,000 slides from the original 2,000 that were sent to Mediscreen will be reported on by Friday. The remaining 16,000 slides are being sent to other NHS laboratories and, as I told the hon. Member for Renfrew, West and Inverclyde (Mr. Graham), we hope that a large batch of results will be announced by mid-May. Great care is being taken over this matter and all possible speed will be made in ensuring that accurate answers are released to the women involved.

Government of Scotland

Mr. John D. Taylor: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what proposals he has for all-party talks on the future government and administration of Scotland.

Mr. Lang: I intend to invite representatives of Opposition parties in Scotland to meet me in due course to


discuss the proposed changes in parliamentary procedure announced in the White Paper "Scotland in the Union: a Partnership for Good".

Mr. Taylor: As there is increasing concern about the lack of progress in resolving matters concerning the administration and government of Scotland, can the Secretary of State tell us even one reason why the Scottish Conservative party is opposed to round table talks with the other three main political parties in Scotland about Scotland's future?

Mr. Lang: The matter is being pursued not by the Scottish Conservative party but by Her Majesty's Government. We will pursue the matter in the way that I have described and will in due course lay before the House proposals on which I hope we shall have broad cross-party agreement.

Mr. Bill Walker: When my right hon. Friend meets the other parties from Scotland, will he bear in mind that the comments during the passage of the Maastricht legislation make it clear that if the treaty comes into force and we are bound by it, with subsidiarity and the creation of, for example, the Committee of the Regions, it will lead to structures under which the United Kingdom will be broken up and it will be a vehicle for separatists? Will he also bear that in mind when considering the changes affecting Scotland?

Mr. Lang: Although of close interest to him, the matters to which my hon. Friend has referred are not part of the subject matter of the White Paper. I hope that he will agree that the best way of maintaining the United Kingdom is to maintain a united Government and a united Conservative party.

Mr. McAllion: If the Secretary of State says no to all-party talks on the establishment of a Scottish parliament, if he continues to say no to 61 of Scotland's 72 elected representatives who are demanding a Scottish parliament, and if he also says no to a referendum on the establishment of a Scottish parliament, how will he assess public opinion in Scotland on that critical issue? Will he talk to the trees or just to the dense undergrowth that sits beside him and behind him on the Government Benches? They do not represent Scottish opinion which remains overwhelmingly in favour of a return to Scottish democracy by the establishment of a directly elected Scottish parliament sitting in Edinburgh and not down here in England.

Mr. Lang: I do not know why the hon. Gentleman should think that he represents Scottish opinion on the matter. He does not even represent his own party on it; he represents the separatist wing of the Labour party. There are also in the Labour party devolutionists, federalists and, I am glad to say, a large number of unionists. The unity of the United Kingdom was the issue at the general election, and the verdict of the electorate was clear.

Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: Since 82 per cent. of the Scots who live in Britain live in England, and since 90 per cent. of the Scots who live in the world do not live in Britain, is not all the nonsense about Scottish government irrelevant? If we are talking about Scottish assemblies, will my right hon. Friend remember that there used to be a kingdom of

Fife, and may we be separated from the Scottish assembly? If I do not like that, may Fordell castle be separated from Fife?

Mr. Lang: As usual, my hon. and learned Friend has the capacity to ask the unanswerable. Let me assure him that the people of the United Kingdom and of Scotland gave their verdict at the general election last year. That was that they wanted to keep Britain united.

ScotRail (Strathclyde)

Mr. McAvoy: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received from Strathclyde regional council about the level of Government support for regional council financial aid to ScotRail services and maintenance programmes within Strathclyde region.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: My right hon. Friend has received no representations about the level of Government support for regional council financial aid to ScotRail services and maintenance programmes within Strathclyde region.

Mr. McAvoy: Does the Minister accept that Government cuts in financial support have affected the relationship between Strathclyde regional council and ScotRail, resulting in pressure on ScotRail to cut costs by reducing safety standards through the installation of single-lead junctions, particularly at Newton, the location of a crash which was caused by a single-lead junction? Will the Minister give a commitment that Government finance will be forthcoming to implement the removal of all single-lead junctions, not only in Strathclyde but throughout Scotland?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The matter has been discussed in the Standing Committee on the Railways Bill, and I understand that action is being taken. I will ensure that the hon. Member's representations are passed on. With regard to the financial settlement to the region, it is 5 per cent. more than in 1992–93, well ahead of current and projected rates of inflation. The overall resources available to Strathclyde regional council next year are expected to be at least at the level of the resources provisionally notified for last year. Of course, Strathclyde council has discretion to vire from one programme to another if it so wishes, but the settlement was generous. I will make sure that the specific point on safety is passed on.

Local Government Services

Mr. Maxton: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when next he intends to meet COSLA to discuss local government services.

Mr. Stewart: I addressed the annual conference of the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities on 26 March. My right hon. Friend and I will be meeting the convention later this year as part of the normal consultation on local government finance matters.

Mr. Maxton: If the Government insist on continuing with the unwanted and unnecessary reform of local government, does the Minister agree that all the existing services provided by local government should continue to be provided by a direct democratically elected local government? If so, does he believe that he should stop his


open and active campaigning for the retention of Eastwood district council as a single absurd unitary authority which made a nonsense of the consultation process on local government reform? Does he accept that the logic of his argument means that Eastwood should be part of a Greater Glasgow council that is democratically elected? Does he also agree that it would be obscenely unfair if his wealthy constituents in Giffnock and Whitecraigs should sponge off my poorer constituents in Castlemilk when they use the facilities provided by Glasgow?

Mr. Stewart: May I first wish the hon. Gentleman many happy returns on his birthday? I am sure that hon. Members will agree that he is wearing well. He will not be surprised to learn that I wholly disagree with him and deprecate his remarks, as do, for example, the Labour leadership in Strathkelvin district council. I suggest that he consults them on his plans for a Greater Glasgow. Objectively, one might look at what has happened, for example, to Roukenglen Park. Glasgow district council wanted to walk away from it, but it is now a major excellent asset for the whole community under Eastwood district council. That is a classic example of the success of Conservative local government policies in action.

Mr. Oppenheim: When my hon. Friend meets COSLA, will he discuss the employment practices of Scottish councils? While English Members find many Scottish customs both colourful and quaint, one that we find extremely strange is the practice of issuing green forms to general job applicants and pink forms to applicants who apply through councillors or who are relatives of councillors at Monklands council. Does that novel application of the share and share alike principle account for the fact that no fewer than 22 close relatives of councillors are employed at Monklands council?

Mr. Stewart: I think the figure may be higher than that. My hon. Friend has rightly highlighted matters of major concern to people in local government in Scotland. What is absolutely astonishing is that the shadow Secretary of State and the leader of the Labour party have remained silent on this matter for months, even though it directly affects their constituents at least one way or the other. They are capable of commenting on anything except this matter which affects their constituents.

Water and Sewerage Services

Mr. Welsh: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he expects to announce the outcome of the consultation on the future of water and sewerage services; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Worthington: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he expects to make a statement on the future of water services in Scotland.

Sir Hector Monro: My right hon. Friend will make an announcement on the future of water and sewerage services in Scotland in due course.

Mr. Welsh: Is the Minister aware of the devastation caused by the disconnection of domestic water supplies to tens of thousands of individuals and families in England and Wales? If so, why did he say in a letter to me that the Government will consider such powers in Scotland? Will

he give an absolute guarantee that there will he no disconnection of household water supplies and that this obscenity will never be visited on Scotland?

Sir Hector Monro: I am really rather surprised that the hon. Gentleman should ask a question on water when he is quoted in The Scotsman as saying:
sabotage could mean everything from turning a tap off to blowing a pipe right up…when we threaten, we will deliver.
I have never heard such arrogance from a Member of Parliament about civil disobedience on the issue of water supply. I made clear in an earlier answer the Government's exact position on water disconnection.

Mr. Worthington: Can the Minister name any people or organisations in Scotland who have written to him supporting water privatisation?

Sir Hector Monro: Yes, indeed, I could. If the hon. Gentleman goes to the Library he can wade through the list and see the number of people who have supported it. I accept that many more have been against privatisation, but all the Opposition Members jump to conclusions. They think that the horse called privatisation is past the post. The fact is that there are still eight or nine other runners in the starting stall. It will be up to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to decide later this summer which style we shall use to bring good quality water services to Scotland.

Mr. Kynoch: Does my hon. Friend agree that, rather than scaremongering with this emotive claptrap, the hon. Member for Angus, East (Mr. Welsh) should address the main issue of how to fund £5 billion of capital expenditure on water services and sewage treatment during the next 10 to 15 years? Does he agree that the most important decision to be taken is how to fund that expenditure at the least possible cost to the taxpayer?

Sir Hector Monro: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I do not know why the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. McLeish) cannot understand the difference between £2·5 billion and £5 billion. We have to accept that, whatever happens, water charges are steadily increasing and have increased dramatically in the past few years. It is the duty of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to provide the best service in the future and to provide the best quality water and sewerage in Scotland. That is what we will do and we shall announce how later this summer.

Mr. Raymond S. Robertson: Will my hon. Friend confirm to the House that, whatever option Her Majesty's Government take up for the future of Scotland's water and sewerage, it will not be the option suggested by the hon. Member for Angus, East (Mr. Welsh)—bomber Welsh—who advocated blowing up water pipes throughout Scotland?

Mr. Welsh: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. That is disgraceful.

Madam Speaker: Order. As the hon. Gentleman knows, I cannot take a point of order at this stage. I do not wish to take up time. However, we should watch the language that we use in the Chamber. Tolerant language at all times is the hallmark of good parliamentary debate. I hope that the hon. Gentleman and others will remember that.

Sir Hector Monro: I note what my hon. Friend has said. Anyone who looks at Library cuttings of what the hon. Member for Angus, East (Mr. Welsh) and the Scottish National party have said will know that what my hon. Friend says is true.

Mr. Welsh: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker: Order. I will take the hon. Gentleman's point of order at the end of Question Time.

Mr. Michael J. Martin: On two occasions here today, the Minister has mentioned that privatisation is not necessarily the solution that the Government are looking for. May I put it on record that on two Saturdays in one part of my constituency alone—Dennistoun—6,000 people put their name to a petition saying that they did not want privatisation? That included three French visitors who visited Duke street. Even they said that they did not want it. So there is no one in Dennistoun who wants privatisation.

Sir Hector Monro: I would much rather drink the water in Dennistoun than the water anywhere in France. But I will certainly bear in mind what the hon. Gentleman has said.

Boundary Reviews

Mr. Ian Bruce: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on boundary reviews for both Westminster and European elections in relation to Scotland.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Under section 2(2) of the Boundary Commissions Act 1992, the Boundary Commission for Scotland has a statutory duty to complete its fourth general review of parliamentary constituencies in Scotland by 31 December 1994. The commission will undertake a review of European parliamentary constituency boundaries in Scotland immediately thereafter.

Mr. Bruce: Does my hon. Friend agree with me that one of the strengths of the Union is the equitable way in which it should treat all its citizens? On the basis that very large numbers of Scots have now migrated to their colony of England and are much involved in the government of that nation, why should those Scots be disfranchised because their vote is worth less in England than it is in Scotland? Will the Scottish Office please give instructions to the boundary commission that the next time the boundaries are reviewed it should work on the average constituency size for the whole of the United Kingdom?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The general answer to my hon. Friend is that the Scottish electoral quota takes account of Scotland's status as a small nation of large, sparsely populated and inaccessible areas. I. have good news for him in one respect. Since 1918, the number of Scots constituencies has increased by one, which is less than 2 per cent., whereas since 1948 the number of English seats has increased by 18–3·4 per cent.—and in Wales by two—5·3 per cent. I suggest to my hon. Friend that the changes in population since 1918, when the present arrangements were set up, are broadly reflected in changes in representation in the House. In other words, if England's population is swelling, England may have a case for more Members of Parliament, but there is no need to alter the number of Scots.

Mr. Ernie Ross: More seriously, will the Minister ensure, first, that the Boundary Commission for Scotland has sufficient funds to carry out the important task on which it is presently engaged and, secondly, that a specific household survey is carried out by electoral registration officers throughout Scotland to ensure that the registers are up to date?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Yes, I will make every effort to ensure that both the requests of the hon. Member are acted upon.

Committee of the Regions

Mr. Norman Hogg: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he expects to announce the details of Scottish representation on the Committee of the Regions; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Lang: The Government are still considering the detailed arrangements for Scottish representation on the Committee of the Regions.

Mr. Hogg: What is more important to the Secretary of State, his shabby deal with the Scottish National party or the representations that he has received from the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities? Is he aware that yesterday my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) pressed the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office to give the terms of the deal between the Government and the Scottish National party? This information was not forthcoming, either from the Minister or from the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) who on that occasion was making a feeble attempt to speak on behalf of the Scottish National party. Will the Secretary of State this afternoon tell us the terms of the agreement with the SNP and end once and for all speculation on this matter?

Mr. Lang: As regards the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, I would certainly expect to be interested in its views about representation on the Committee of the Regions. As regards the deal with the Scottish National party, contents of deals of that kind are confidential and I do not regard it as my job to breach a confidence. What I can say to the hon. Gentleman is that the Scottish National party failed to honour the deal that it offered the Government and therefore the Government regard themselves as under no obligation to it.—[Interruption.]

Mr. Norman Hogg: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. The answer we have just had to my question is so important for Scottish Members that we must have clarification of it from the Government and from the SNP.—[interruption]

Madam Speaker: Order. I cannot take a point of order at this stage. The hon. Gentleman is in any case not raising a point of order.

Water Charges

Mr. Macdonald: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will examine ways of reducing the level of water charges faced by island authorities.

Mr. Stewart: The setting of water charges in the islands is a matter for the islands councils. It would therefore be for the councils to examine ways of reducing the charges.


There is no statutory basis on which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State can intervene in the setting of charges.

Mr. Macdonald: Does the Minister accept that the island authorities face a particular problem in that they must finance very expensive schemes on the basis of a relatively small population and that this leads to a huge disparity in the costs faced by island consumers compared with those on the mainland? Will he therefore undertake to look at this problem and try to find ways to reduce the disparity and to bring the water charges in the islands more into line with those on the mainland?

Mr. Stewart: The Western Isles has been allocated £3 million for water and sewerage for 1993–94. That allocation has more than doubled in four years. I can reassure the hon. Gentleman that the Western Isles council qualifies for the top rate of grant of 75 per cent. for rural

water supplies. In the past three years, around £600,000 has been paid to the Western Isles in respect of assistance for eligible schemes, and the council will continue to qualify under particular schemes.

Mr. Matthew Banks: Given that it was necessary to wait for the advent of privatisation to find the £85 million necessary to invest in a badly needed new sewerage treatment plant in my English constituency, will my hon. Friend join me in my enthusiasm that Scotland should benefit as soon as possible from the very many advantages to be gained from privatisation of the water industry?

Mr. Stewart: As my hon. Friend says, there are considerable advantages south of the border from water privatisation. My right hon. Friend will, of course, be considering all the representations he has received on this issue.

Points of Order

Mr. Andrew Welsh: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. An attempt was made by a Minister and a Conservative Back Bencher to attribute to me ideas which I have never propounded. I have made my views clear to the House and to yourself, Madam Speaker, and they are on record in Hansard. I cannot use the word "liar", but how else can I describe somebody who continues to promote an untruth?
May I suggest to the Minister, through you, Madam Speaker, that he tries to attribute those ideas to me directly outside of the House? I cannot make my views more clear. They are on record in Hansard,s and I think that all hon. Members should read that record and note what I said.

Madam Speaker: As the hon. Member knows, that is not a point of order for me. It is a question of dispute, which has now been dealt with.

Mr. Alistair Darling: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Have you had any request from a Minister to make a statement regarding the circumstances of Mr. Asil Nadir's departure from the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom? This is a matter of great importance for the ability of this country to prosecute serious City fraud, and I believe that a statement should be made by the relevant Government Minister. I see that the Foreign Secretary is in the Chamber and I wonder whether he would be able to say something on the Government's behalf.

Madam Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is referring to the man in question as if he has already been found guilty. That he must not do. As to the hon. Gentleman's question, I have not been approached by any Minister wishing to make a statement on the issue.

Mr. Bob Cryer: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. If, as a result of the case of Mr. Asil Nadir, there should be any legislation before the House, will you give a ruling on whether any Conservative Member would be allowed to vote, in view of the very large number of donations which Mr. Nadir has given to the Conservative party, and which provides them with a direct pecuniary interest in his case?

Madam Speaker: Whenever there is any legislation before the House and individual Members have a financial interest, the hon. Gentleman knows that they must declare that interest.

Dr. Keith Hampson: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I have mentioned to my hon. Friend the Member for Holland with Boston (Sir R. Body) that I was going to raise with you the fact that last week a constituent of mine received from him a letter begging for funds on behalf of the Danish "no" campaign, which he argued was going bust. My constituent was offered the additional incentive that, if she donated £50, she would be sent, free, a copy of one of his books on Europe, worth £14. My constituent wrote to my hon. Friend the Member for Holland with Boston only last November in favour of the Maastricht treaty, not against, and received this letter——

Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must not argue the case but come to the point of order for me.

Dr. Hampson: My point of order is that this letter was part of a large-scale operation asking for funds on behalf of the Danes and it was sent on House of Commons notepaper in a pre-paid House of Commons envelope. My hon. Friend is one of those who is among the first to decry wasteful use of taxpayers' money on European ventures and my constituent would like your assistance, Madam Speaker, in getting back some of our money.

Several hon. Members: rose——

Madam Speaker: Order. I note that the hon. Member for Holland with Boston (Sir R. Body) is rising to put a point of order. I shall hear him before responding.

Sir Richard Body: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. I am grateful for having been given notice that the matter would he raised. but unfortunately that notice arrived only a short time ago, and I have yet to see the Leeds letter in question. But I have received a huge amount of correspondence from the public about my views on Maastricht and about how I have voted.
I have sought to reply to all of them, but, because there have been so many, I have had to respond by means of a standard letter—[interruption.] I have in my pocket a copy of that standard letter. Almost all the letters—in fact, I think all of them without exception—sought my advice about what people could do about the Maastricht Bill——

Madam Speaker: Order. I now understand the point of order. I must tell the hon. Member for Leeds, North-West (Dr. Hampson) that I cannot guarantee that his constituents will get their money refunded. Indeed, contents of letters are not a matter for me. But the use of House of Commons stationery for such an appeal is a matter for the Administration Committee, and I have already referred it to the Serjeant at Arms. I shall hear no further points of order on that matter. I have now dealt with it.

Mr. Gerald Kaufman: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I wish to raise with you a matter relating to the rights of the House consequent on three ministerial answers that I received. While the content of the answers is not a matter for you, their effects on the rights of the House is, which is why I make this submission to you.
I put down three questions to the Secretary of State for Social Services relating to the cost to the Exchequer of certain payments and expenditure of the Benefits Agency. One related to the Benefits Agency funding examinations by private well person clinics for all staff aged over 35. Another was about the cost to the Exchequer of the Benefits Agency requiring staff during the past 18 months to work
at time and a half and double time, plus travelling expenses, for the purpose of making up the backlog of disability living allowance cases.
The third was about the cost to the Exchequer of the activity of the Benefits Agency in providing its staff with corporate clothing, whatever that might be.
I received a response to the first question from the junior Minister at the Department which. while not a full


reply, provided me with the information that I requested, which was the cost to the Exchequer, which was £2·1 million.
In relation to the other two questions, which were in precisely the same form, the Minister of State in one case and the junior Minister in the other refused to give me that information and said instead that it was a matter for the notorious and ineffable Mr. Michael Bichard, the chief executive of the Benefits Agency, who would be writing to me.
Two matters arise, Madam Speaker, one more important than the other. The first is why, in relation to three questions put in identical form, the information is provided in response to one but refused in response to the other two.
The second is that this House votes supply. The Exchequer, through the Chancellor of the Exchequer and other Ministers, is responsible to the House, and only Ministers have the duty and responsibility of explaining to the House how supply is spent through the Exchequer. Yet in this case they have decided to ask an over-paid errand boy, the chief executive of the Benefits Agency, to reply on a matter which is the responsibility of the House and on which it is the duty of a Minister to reply to the House.
Therefore, I ask you, Madam Speaker, to advise me on how we can prevent the Government from delegating ministerial responsibility to the House to a person who is not responsible to the House of Commons.

Madam Speaker: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving me notice of his point of order. I must make it clear to him—I hope once and for all, as I have dealt with such matters before on his behalf—that I have no responsibility for ministerial answers or for refusals to answer. The right hon. Gentleman raised the general issue in an Adjournment debate, and if he wishes to take the matter further or make further submissions he may care to contact the Treasury and Civil Service Committee, which has taken an interest in the status of agencies. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will accept that it is not a matter for me.

Mr. David Winnick: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. As I understand it, all citizens are or should be equal before the law and no one should he in a privileged position because he has donated to the party in office—even if he has donated £440,000.
In view of the considerable public disquiet over what has happened, what steps can hon. Members take to obtain a statement from the Government on the disappearance of Mr. Asil Nadir, who was facing serious charges? Apparently, his passport had been taken away and he was due to report daily to a police station—he has simply disappeared. A lot of money is owing to his creditors—some of it was donated to the Tory party without being put on the company accounts.
In view of the public disquiet, what can be done to obtain a statement from the Home Secretary or the Foreign Secretary on that individual and how he has fled the country?

Madam Speaker: The hon. Gentleman, who has been a Member of Parliament for a long time, knows that I do not give procedural advice across the Floor of the House. He knows the ways of the House and does not have to seek information from the Chair on how to proceed in order to obtain the information that he wants.

Mr. Hugh Dykes: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I am sorry that I was not able to give notice of my point of order, but it was prompted by my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-West (Dr. Hampson) and is a general point of order.
It relates to your previous references to the misuse of parliamentary notepaper and official stamped envelopes. You may remember when, in December, I raised an issue involving my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash). I am sorry to raise the matter again, but surely the crucial issue is not that the stationery was used to reply to letters, but that unsolicited letters were sent to people whose names and addresses—[Interruption.]

Madam Speaker: Order. That is not a point of order. I have seen the letter and satisfied myself as to what it is all about.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: I think that somebody should try to give you some assistance on this, Madam Speaker——

Madam Speaker: Order. If the hon. Gentleman has a point of order, I am willing to hear it, but I need little assistance from the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner).

Mr. Skinner: During the past 10 minutes, blood has been flying across from Tory Benches as Tory Members have been fighting like Kilkenny cats. I want to know whether you will give permission to the Services Committee or whoever to make a splash apron to place across the front of the Opposition Benches to keep the blood away.

Madam Speaker: No, but I shall give authority for the hon. Gentleman to have a bullet-proof vest if he wishes.

Mr. Eric Clarke: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. May I draw your attention to Scottish Question Time, when four out of five Tory Back Benchers each asked two questions? I have been patiently waiting as I am 34th on the list and have a question to ask about a health issue. Could you be more fair in your asking of questions to all those involved?

Hon. Members: Oh.

Madam Speaker: I very much resent the hon. Gentleman's remarks, and I seek an apology from him right now.

Mr. Clarke: I did not mean, Madam Speaker, that you were being unfair—I apologise for that. I am just voicing—not very well—the anger and frustration from which we suffer because of people stealing time from us.

Madam Speaker: I think that what the hon. Gentleman suffers from is a great bout of frustration, but he knows as well as the House knows that I deal very fairly with all questions, including Scottish questions. If he has any further complaints, I seriously suggest that he put down a substantive motion. I doubt that he will do that; if he looks at the record, I think that he will shy away from doing so.

Mr. Norman Hogg: On a point of order, Madam Speaker, arising out of Scottish questions this afternoon. For some time, from early March onwards, Opposition Members have been endeavouring to secure information about the terms of the agreement reached between Her Majesty's Government and the


parliamentary leader of the Scottish National party. The Government have steadfastly refused to provide that information; this afternoon we were told that it was confidential. I understand that point, although I do not go along with it, because I believe in open government.
The Secretary of State then said that the Scottish National party had failed to honour the terms of the agreement reached, and that, in the circumstances, no such agreement now existed. I hope that I understand the position correctly. If I do, I feel that the matter ought to be pursued, because the SNP has written to all its councillors in Scotland, and there has been a great deal of press briefing. It is clear that, yet again, the Scottish people have been misled, and I hope to raise this matter on the Adjournment.

Madam Speaker: That is hardly a point of order for me. It is more a matter of the hon. Gentleman seeking to extend Scottish Question Time.

Mr. Phil Gallie: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. As the fifth Member of the five referred to by the hon. Member for Midlothian (Mr. Clarke), and despite having bounced up and down like a peerie during Scottish Question Time, am I to suppose that there is something wrong with me, since I have not been called a second time?

Madam Speaker: The House appears to be in very good spirits this afternoon.

Mr. Max Madden: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I seek your guidance. As Ministers are clearly most reluctant to make a statement about Mr. Nadir, would it be in order to table questions to the Home Secretary asking what bail conditions applied, whether his passport was held by the police, and most particularly whether Group 4 was involved in this fiasco?

Madam Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is again asking for procedural advice. He knows how to proceed.

Mrs. Margaret Ewing: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Leaving aside the neurosis—indeed, the paranoia—of the hon. Member for Cumbernauld and Kilsysth (Mr. Hogg) who, as a former Whip, well knows that many discussions and negotiations take place in this House, will you, Madam Speaker, accept that the Scottish National party has always been very open about its discussions on the Committee of the Regions and the Maastricht treaty, and on how we view our future in Europe?
Would you therefore agree that, when a Privy Councillor gives his word that negotiatons are worth pursuing and worth fulfilling but that is not subsequently followed through, it must be a matter of resignation for the Privy Councillor concerned?

Madam Speaker: I think that that is a matter for the Privy Councillor himself to determine.

Mr. Andrew Faulds: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. As to the Asil Nadir case, for those of us who know something about the history of Cyprus—that is to say, not many Members of this House—[Interruption.] You are all bloody ignorant about it.

Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman should not let his audience detract from his point of order to me.

Mr. Faulds: I am an old man, and I occasionally get impatient at the stupidity of my colleagues on both sides of the House.
Is it not a fact that, if the British Government had taken appropriate action when Archbishop Makarios aborted the constitution—[Interruption.] try to learn—of the Republic of Cyprus in 1963, and if the British Government had had the guts to take any action in 1974, when there was an attempted coup in southern Cyprus, the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus should be recognised, and there would be no problem about the return of Asil Nadir?

Madam Speaker: The hon. Gentleman has been in the House for a long time. He knows that that is not a point of order for me, but a political comment. We must now proceed.

Landlord and Tenant (Covenants)

Mr. John Fraser: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the law relating to privity of contract and estate in respect of covenants in tenancies; to give effect to the recommendations of the Law Commission in that regard; and for connected purposes.
The Bill was drafted by the Law Commission—which exists to advise the Government and the House on changes in the law—in report 174, and was published in 1988 under the title "Landlord and Tenant Privity of Contract and Estate". It has the support of a large number of property lawyers and of hon. Members on both sides of the House. It will remove a dangerous catch in the law. I know that the Lord Chancellor has promised to legislate along the lines of the Law Commission's report, but only for leases granted after the date of the enactment of any measure that he introduces. That is a wholly inadequate response to a problem that afflicts many business tenants here and now.
The problem that the Bill addresses was considered carefully by the Law Commission. The easiest way to describe the Bill is by illustrating the problem. At the moment, in law, original tenants and landlords are contractually liable, under the terms of the lease, no matter how long after they have ceased to have any interest in the property to which the lease relates. In the words of Michael Caine, "Not a lot of people know that." However, it is a fact, and it has caused some suffering to some business tenants.
Let me give an illustration. Let us suppose that a landlord grants a 21-year lease on a shop or a factory to a tenant. After three years of the lease, perhaps because that original tenant is making a success of the business, he transfers the lease to a second tenant. The second tenant then transfers the lease to a third tenant, the third to a fourth and so on down a chain of transfers.
Let us assume that, after the lease has run for 19 of the 21 years, in the 19th year the tenant then in possession of the premises defaults on payment of rent or fails to carry out essential repairs to the premises. The law is that the original tenant, who took the property on 19 years ago but gave it up 16 years ago, is liable for the default and has to deal with the repairs. The problem may be even worse with the rent, because if the 21-year lease has rent revision clauses, the original tenant may be liable to pay a rent perhaps five or even 10 times the original rent that he signed up for. Recently, Iandlords—mostly institutional landlords—have begun to spring that trap on unsuspecting original tenants.
The liability of the original tenant is not a fanciful notion. It is a disabling. even a bankrupting, event for the original tenant, and it has been particularly marked during the recession. After all, in London alone last year, over 40,000 businesses became insolvent or at least went out of business, based on the figures for VAT terminations. Therefore, many thousands of original lessees could find themselves liable as a result of subsequent tenants defaulting. For many original tenants, the original lessee liability leases represent a timebomb ticking away underneath them, although they have no control or

influence over what happens with the later tenants. As I have explained, it could be even worse as there may have been later rent reviews.
I shall give two recent dramatic examples. When the IRA bomb exploded in Bishopsgate, causing millions of pounds of damage to premises—some of which may not have been insured because of the changes in the insurance market—the original tenant of one of those premises could be liable for millions of pounds' worth of damage, long after he had parted with the lease.
The second example is Canary Wharf. If its developers had done a lease swop—had taken over the lease of premises in the City of London in order to persuade that leaseholder to take a lease at Canary Wharf—when those developers then failed, the business tenant could find himself holding a lease at Canary Wharf and having to pay rent there, and also liable as the original lessee for the rent on the premises in the City of London.
The central feature of my Bill would be to release the original tenant once he or she had transferred the lease, but subject to some safeguards for the landlord in the first transfer by the original lessee—if it were reasonable to provide safeguards in the particular circumstances. That is one of the recommendations of the Law Commission. The Bill would also provide for the original landlord to be released from his obligations under certain circumstances.
A few people—I suspect, very few—might say that the Bill is unfair to landlords. However, the truth is that the institutional landlord, as it usually is, that enforces the original lessee liability is able to spread his risk. The unfortunate original tenant cannot, except in a very few circumstances, spread the risk.
That is why the law should be changed, and that is why the Law Commission has taken the same view. It is essential that we legislate for that now and that it should apply to current leases. The Lord Chancellor's proposals to direct legislation only at future leases are inadequate.
The Bill will prevent a massive injustice—the falling upon original tenants of wholly unexpected but unavoidable losses. Business people may have moved out of their premises long ago because of their success, or perhaps because of retirement. Indeed, there are many instances of retired people being caught under the present law.
The Bill has the support not only of both sides of the House, but of chambers of commerce and many retail associations. Indeed, the recession underlines the need for the Bill. It will correct an ancient but commercially dangerous feature of the law and I ask the House to give me leave to present it.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. John Fraser. Mr. John Morris, Mr. Keith Vaz, Mr. Keith Hill, Mr. Malcolm Wicks, Mr. Jim Dowd, Mr. Douglas French, Mr. Nigel Evans, Mr. David Nicholson, Mrs. Angela Browning, Mr. Simon Hughes and Mr. Chris Mullin.

LANDLORD AND TENANT (COVENANTS)

Mr. John Fraser accordingly presented a Bill to amend the law relating to privity of contract and estate in respect of covenants in tenancies; to give effect to the recommendations of the Law Commission in that regard; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 14 May, and to be printed. [Bill 190.]

Orders of the Day — European Communities (Amendment) Bill

As amended (in the Standing Committee), further considered.

Clause 1

TREATY ON EUROPEAN UNION

Dr. John Cunningham: I beg to move amendment No. 2, in page 1, line 18, after 'Community', insert—
'with the exception of the Protocol on Social Policy on page 117 of Cm 1934'.

Madam Speaker: With this it will be convenient also to discuss amendment No. 26, in page 1, line 18, after 'Community', insert—
', with the exception of the Protocol on Social Policy'.

Dr. Cunningham: The amendment stands in the name of my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the Opposition; the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown), the leader of the Liberal Democrats; the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond), the parliamentary leader of the SNP; the right hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume), the leader of the SDLP; the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. I. Paisley), the leader of the DUP; and myself. It is supported by a large number of hon. Members on both sides of the House.
I begin by saying that, already, one important victory has been achieved for the House of Commons—after a long struggle to have a vote on the issue at all. In pursuing that objective, we have had very much in mind the need to uphold the rights of the House of Commons itself and the rights of Opposition parties represented here.
As it stands, the Bill keeps the United Kingdom outside the scope of the protocol on social policy, so excluding the United Kingdom from the social chapter. It prevents the people of the United Kingdom from being part of the full social dimension of the EC.
The Bill excludes Britain from provisions, which our 11 partners have agreed, to facilitate greater protection for employed people in their working conditions, better rights of consultation and information, equality of treatment and opportunity for men and women and the integration into the labour force of people who have been long-term unemployed, including people with disabilities.
Those benefits will flow to the citizens of the 11 other members of the Community, but will be denied to the people of our country by the actions of Her Majesty's Government. We deplore that denial of the legitimate rights of the people of our country. Those rights will be readily available to other citizens of the Community, and we have always held that they should be available to the people of Britain too.
The opt-out that the Government negotiated was to do not so much with the rights or wrongs of the provisions of the social chapter as with the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary trying to buy off opposition in their own party by throwing some kind of sop to their opponents over the Maastricht treaty ratification process—a trick which has signally failed to deliver the goods.
The Government have been consistent in their inconsistency on the matter. First, they said that the provisions of the social chapter would be damaging to the interests of Britain and the British economy, but they failed to produce a single shred of evidence to substantiate that.
Then we had a long series of statements over many months by the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the right hon. Member for Watford (Mr. Garel-Jones), who I note is not in his place today. I think that we can assume that the field marshal is here to try to organise an orderly retreat from everything that the Government have said hitherto about the consequences of amendment No. 2, formerly Committee stage amendment No. 27.
But it is worth reminding the House what the right hon. Member for Watford has said. For example, on 20 January he said that, if the Labour party pressed amendment No. 27 to a Division, we should be aware that,
under the terms of the amendment, United Kingdom law would not conform to the treaty's provisions, so it would be impossible for the United Kingdom to ratify the treaty".
On the same day, he went on to ask whether I could explain the Opposition's objectives if the United Kingdom was not in a position to ratify the treaty as a result of the amendment. Our objectives have always been clear and consistent—to secure the real benefits of the provisions of the social chapter in the interests of the people of our country.
The right hon. Member for Watford was nothing if not persistent on that occasion. He went on:
the question remains, and the hon. Gentleman must answer it"—
that was me—
does the amendment place the British Government in the position of being a non-ratificant?"—[Official Report, 20 January 1993; Vol. 217, c. 403–4.]
"Non-ratificant" is an odd word, but it is an odd argument—one that we have never believed.
At least there was some consistency between our side of the argument and the position adopted by the Foreign Secretary, who said in a statement:
The House will recall that the protocol on social policy authorises the other 11 member states of the Community to have recourse to the institutions, procedures and mechanisms of the treaty of Rome for the purposes of implementing their agreement on co-operation in the social area—the so-called social chapter. Most significantly, it specifies that acts adopted by the Council under the terms of the protocol shall not be applicable to the United Kingdom."—[Official Report, 15 February 1993; Vol. 219, c. 27.]
For us, that is what the argument has always been about.
On that occasion, the Foreign Secretary said that all the previous advice from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office—based on the consistent legal opinion of his advisers during many months and enunciated on many occasions in this House and elsewhere by his right hon. Friend the Minister of State, the right hon. Member for Watford—had suddenly been found to be completely wrong.
He said that, for many months, during the Maastricht treaty negotiations and subsequent discussions about the significance of the social chapter and the Government's opt-out, he and his colleagues had been misled by their legal advisers. That was, and remains, a singularly unconvincing argument.
In their various manoeuvrings and meanderings during this long labyrinth of debate about the significance of our


amendment, the Government have shown a unique facility to be able to stick their heads in the sand but still come up with egg on their faces.

Mr. Hugh Dykes: Although I concede that it is not precisely within the same framework, does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the argument for pressing the amendment is displaced by the existence of clause 5 of the Bill, which was voted on as new clauses 74 and 75?

Dr. Cunningham: No, I do not agree. Throughout arguments over the statements and decisions of the Chairman of Ways and Means about the admissibility of a vote on the issue, I have always maintained that amendment No. 2—amendment No. 27 in Committee—and new clauses 74 and 75 had specific, discrete and different purposes, and different implications for the legislation. That was my position, and it remains so. Whatever else the hon. Gentleman may say, we have been completely consistent about that throughout the debate and I maintain that position today.
The Foreign Secretary went on to advise the Committee that it did not really matter whether amendment No. 2 was carried. Speaking on the advice of his right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General, he said that it would have no consequence. We did not accept that belated, eleventh-hour and extremely partial analysis of the consequences of amendment No. 27 on 15 February, and nor do we accept those arguments today.
The Government—in the form of the Foreign Secretary—then went on to say that, even though the amendment was of no significance, it did not matter, as it should be defeated anyway. His phrase was that it should be defeated for the sake of "completeness and clarity."
Whatever the right hon. Gentleman can claim for the Government's position during this long drawn-out argument, it is not clarity. Even now, as the debate on amendment No. 2 commences, there is no clarity about the Government's intentions. Perhaps the Foreign Secretary would like to rise to tell the House the exact significance of his presence.
One way or the other, the Government are bound to lose. If—in the words of the Daily Mail, which is not generally known as a supporter of the Labour party—the Government do not know whether to run or to stand and fight, that tells us something about the confusion that continues to reign.
If the Foreign Secretary proposes that the House should accept the amendment now, after all the weeks of deliberation, obfuscation, prevarication and delay, the obvious question for us to ask—and, surely, for those outside to ask—is "What has it all been about?" Why did not the Government agree to accept the amendment in the first place? Not only would that have saved the House and the Chair a good deal of unnecessary anguish and difficulty; it would have saved perhaps thousands of metres of column inches in the national newspapers and other publications which have been picking over the entrails in an attempt to establish the Government's objectives.
Our objectives, in contrast, are consistent, and benefit from the clarity to which the Foreign Secretary referred.

Mr. Stephen Milligan: The right hon. Gentleman asked the Government for clarity. Will he

clarify what he seeks to achieve? It is clear that amendment No. 2 will not reinstate the social chapter in the treaty; what, then, is its object?

Dr. Cunningham: I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's premise. He made an almost identical intervention when I spoke in a similar debate on 20 January. He clearly has not changed his view; I have not changed mine either. As I said on 20 January, and have said several times today, the object of the amendment is to secure the benefits of the social chapter in the interests of the people of Britain.

The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Douglas Hurd): How will the amendment do that? Its wording does not even purport to do that.

Dr. Cunningham: On 20 January, I said—ah, I see that the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office has entered the Chamber. The debate is no longer "Hamlet" without the prince.
On 20 January, I said that the amendment would confront the Government with a dilemma. Either they would have to renegotiate with our 11 Community partners to fold into the treaty the benefits of the social chapter for Britain, or they would have to resolve the problem in some other way. Now, friends of the Foreign Secretary are saying that, if the amendment is carried, they will use the opportunity to take action in the courts—perhaps to seek judicial review. I do not know—that is a matter for them.
We also believe that the amendment will give employees and trade unions, singularly or in groups, an opportunity to take their cases to the European Court to ensure that the benefits of the social chapter apply to them in exactly the same way as they will undoubtedly apply to employees of their own companies operating in other Community member states. I know what the Foreign Secretary will say: he will say that none of that will result from the amendment.

Mr. Hurd: It is not in the amendment.

Dr. Cunningham: I am talking about the amendment's consequences. Here is another attempt at obfuscation: already, the right hon. Gentleman is starting to dissemble yet again. I have no doubt that he will repeat what he said on 15 February, on the advice of the Attorney-General. Let me reiterate that that interpretation is not widely shared—not only in the House, but among legal experts elsewhere in the Community, let alone elsewhere in the United Kingdom.
As I have made clear, we will pursue our amendment. We shall ask the House to support it, unless, as I suspect—the Foreign Secretary has already refused the opportunity to make the Government's intentions clear to the House at the outset—the right hon. Gentleman now tells us that the Government are going to accept it after all.

Mr. Tony Marlow: I am a genuine seeker after truth. On four occasions the right hon. Gentleman has talked about the benefits of the social protocol. Can he tell the House what the social protocol will provide that is not in articles 118A and 118B of the Single European Act, articles which he will know well?

4. 15 pm

Dr. Cunningham: At the beginning of the debate, I took, the precaution of reading out what we thought the general benefits of the social chapter provisions would be, but I guess either that the hon. Gentleman was not here at the time or that he was not listening very carefully. I have another observation to make on his intervention. If he is a genuine seeker after truth, I put it to him that he joined the wrong political party to attain that objective.
The reasons that the Attorney-General and the Foreign Secretary have in mind have nothing to do with neatness and tidiness. They involve something more substantial, I would argue, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) has argued in the past.
The Attorney-General and the Foreign Secretary still appear to be terrified of the consequences of amendment No. 27, and seek to play down its implications by saying that it will have no effect at all. The reality, however, is that they have manoeuvred over a long period to try to prevent the House from coming to a decision on the matter.
The Attorney-General and the Foreign Secretary were relieved each time that the amendment temporarily seemed to disappear from the agenda of the business of the House but, thanks to our persistence and the correct ruling in the interests of the House of Commons that you eventually gave, Madam Speaker, we have that opportunity today.
The Attorney-General's view—produced, as I said, quite unexpectedly—had all the hallmarks of a desperate attempt to get the Government off the hook on the issue. It is astonishing—many people share this view—that the Government, having gone through the negotiations on the Maastricht treaty and having seen the amendment on the Amendment Paper for many months—from the spring of last year—should have consistently advanced one view and then, when it became apparent that they faced defeat, should have got the Attorney-General to pop up, like a rabbit out of a hat, and say something else. The Government did not even have the grace to say that the Foreign Secretary had been wrong. They just said that they had come to a different conclusion.
I put it to Ministers and to those who sit on the Conservative Benches that that kind of procedure and action has no credibility at all, not only in this House but with people outside. Little is more calculated to bring the workings of Government into disrepute than that kind of behaviour over discussions and decisions in the House of Commons. It is our belief—that is why we have persisted with amendment No. 27, and we are confident about it—that the consequences of its inclusion in the Bill will be to the eventual benefit of the people of Britain.
The Foreign Secretary asks why we persist with it. If he believes—I am not sure what in his heart of hearts he really believes in any longer—that the amendment is likely to end in the possibility of long, complicated and expensive litigation, there is a simple answer: accept the provisions of the social chapter now and stop this reactionary isolation, thus preventing our citizens from having the advantages that everyone—except the Conservative party and, as I said on 20 January, the neo-fascist party of France—believes will flow from it.

Mrs. Edwina Currie: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that many Conservative Members feel that the social chapter is a mistake not just for this country but for much of the rest of Europe, given the

fading competitiveness of Europe vis-a-vis the United States, Japan and the far east? Does he not agree that, if we are to protect our citizens and work forces and ensure that they have jobs in future, we need to be extremely careful about introducing high-cost employment laws?

Dr. Cunningham: I do not believe that, and neither does any other democratic party of any political persuasion in any member country of the European Community. The German Christian Democrats do not believe it; the Free Democrats do not believe it; and nor does any political party in any of the countries that are applicants for membership of the European Community.
As I said, the only other political party that shares that view is that led by Mr. Jean-Marie Le Pen. I doubt whether even the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie) is comfortable in his company. I might add that, if she is successful in her quest for a seat in the European Parliament—a subject on which there is also some doubt in my mind—she will not find that any of the parties represented there share her view.
The view taken by the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South is reminiscent of the isolation of the Conservative party over another issue—the poll tax. We all remember how, in the face of all the evidence, of all rational argument and of all sensible debate, the Conservative party alone ploughed on into the quagmire of the poll tax, with all that that meant and with all the damage it caused, not only to individuals but to the formidable and worthwhile institution of democratic local government. I do not know how Conservative Members can take comfort in their isolation—their unique position of obstinacy. Their views are completely their own and are not supported anywhere else.

Mr. Phil Gallie: Given that the Labour party has changed its mind so many times in recent years, is it not possible that parties in other parts of Europe will eventually see the light and join the Conservative party in taking a realistic approach?

Dr. Cunningham: The light coming from the Conservative party to which the hon. Gentleman refers is little more than one-candle power. In reality, the concentrated beams of searchlights across the rest of Europe are all focused on one issue—the need for a developing European Community to be more than just a market economy and to have a social dimension.
That is what the argument has always been about. That remains our argument. That is why we have persisted. I believe that we have done parliamentary democracy a service by making sure that we all had an opportunity to vote on the issue and that we are right, too, on the merits of the argument.
I suspect that the Foreign Secretary will say that the Government propose to accept the amendment. In that case, he will have little credibility, but it seems that this Government will do anything rather than have to face a defeat in the Division Lobbies on this issue.

Mr. Hurd: It is not very long since we discussed the substance of this matter; it seems to be a situation comedy that runs and runs, episode by episode. I noted today that it still has its addicts among the press, but I am not sure that its popular ratings are as great as all that. Only about


a fortnight ago, I debated with the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) the substance of the question, and I shall not do so again, except in the briefest summary.
Most of my right hon. and hon. Friends believe that one of the biggest challenges facing the European economy is declining competitiveness. Unemployment is the biggest source of poverty in this country today. If we are uncompetitive, we create unemployment. From the figures that were given in the debate on 22 April, there can be no doubt that European competitiveness is declining. My hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie) was right in saying that that is one of the main problems.
If that is so, the true question for those interested in the social dimension of the single market is not how to ensure, through a social chapter, precisely the same levels of social provision in each member state, but how Europe can effectively compete in the world. Competitiveness is the key to generating the necessary wealth to provide the social safety net. The social provisions of any treaty cannot by themselves generate that. That is a brief summary of the substantive argument against the social chapter which led my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to insist on the opt-out.
The debate is not a new one in the House. We have debated the issue time and again over almost a year and a half. In that time, the House has rejected on three separate occasions Opposition motions or amendments calling for the incorporation of the social agreement into the treaty. So the House of Commons is repeatedly on record on that point. In the pre-Maastricht debate on 20 and 21 November 1991, a Labour amendment, which called for, among other things, the inclusion of the social agreement in the treaty of Rome, was defeated by 191 votes. [HON. MEMBERS: "That was in the previous Parliament."] I shall come to this Parliament in a moment.
In the debate on 18 and 19 December 1991, immediately after Maastricht, the Liberals tabled an amendment deploring the social opt-out. It was defeated by a majority of 364. On Second Reading of the Bill, on 20 and 21 May 1992—in this Parliament—Labour moved that the Bill not be read a Second time, partly because of the opt-out on the social chapter. That amendment was defeated by 99 votes. There is no doubt about the judgment of the previous Parliament and of this Parliament on the question whether the treaty should or should not include the social chapter.
Nevertheless, we recognised that the House wanted yet another chance to vote on the principle. The right hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) pressed that, as did other hon. Members, and we accepted new clause 74, now clause 5 of the amended Bill. That will allow a further debate and a vote after the Bill has received Royal Assent, when the opt-out can be considered on its merits. The point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes) is just.
What is clearly not possible, despite the arguments of the right hon. Member for Copeland, is to discuss the substance on the basis of the amendment that we are debating. It does not provide for consideration of the opt-out on its merits. What we see as a result of the manoeuvring—this is the heart of the matter—not by the Government but by the Opposition, as has been spotted by the more perceptive commentators, is two different groups in the House engaged in procedural manoeuvres which are incompatible.
The two camps who favour the amendment do so for entirely different and contradictory reasons. First, there are those who are opposed to the social chapter but even more opposed to the treaty of Maastricht itself; they sit on the Conservative Benches. We know that they are opposed to the social chapter. I have here the record of the Divisions in which they expressed that opposition. My hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow), who intervened just now, has a stalwart record of voting against the social chapter. My hon. Friends the Members for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen) and for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton)—I simply draw attention to two hon. Members who are immediately prominent in the debate—have a stalwart record, such as one would expect from Conservative Members, of opposing the social chapter. They are clear about that. The only thing that is clearer is that they dislike the treaty of Maastricht even more, and they will lose no opportunity to prevent it from being ratified.

Mr. Marlow: The right hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) talked about the benefits of the social chapter—my right hon. Friend is talking about the dangers of the social chapter. Before my right hon. Friend goes much further, will he go into the details of the protocol and tell us precisely what the Government are frightened of that is not contained in articles 118a and 118b of the Single European Act?

Mr. Hurd: My hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) pressed me on that point during the debate on new clause 74. I do not have the list of examples that I gave him. If my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North wishes to refresh his memory, he will find the answer to his question in Hansard.
My hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North voted five times in debates, in one way or another rejecting the social chapter. Obviously, after his research into the matter he concluded that the social chapter was deeply undesirable. A group of hon. Members, including my hon. Friend, dislike the social chapter. They dislike the treaty even more and will swallow their scruples about the social chapter because they believe that they can prevent the treaty from being ratified by voting for this amendment. That is completely in contradiction to the larger group of Labour Members who favour the social chapter and claim to support the Maastricht treaty.
We have one group of hon. Members who want the treaty—[Interruption.] I cannot be entirely exhaustive in my catalogue of the eccentricities of opinion in the House. But, broadly speaking, one group wants the treaty and the social chapter and another group wants neither the treaty nor the social chapter. Extraordinarily, both groups—this is the curious feature of amendment No. 2—seem to think that the amendment serves their contrary purposes. Both groups cannot be right. In fact, both are wrong, and I shall explain why we believe that to be so.
Some Conservative Members want, above all, to prevent ratification, despite their Conservative analysis and rejection of the social chapter. I explained to the House in some detail in a statement on 15 February, to which the right hon. Member for Copeland genially referred, why the present amendment—amendment No. 2 is virtually the same as amendment No. 27—would not prevent ratification—[Interruption.] I was in sackcloth


and ashes on that occasion and I do not intend to put them on again. I can recap the argument and the advice I received from my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General which I gave to the House on that occasion, and which he repeated in the House a week later. Clearly, I must do so.
Amendment No. 27 is the same as amendment No. 2 in that it would exclude from the scope of clause 1(1) of the Bill—that is, from incorporation in domestic law under the European Communities Act—the protocol on social policy. That is all that it would do. The amendment would not have any effect on the treaty or its protocols. Therefore, the legal question must be: can Britain ratify the treaty even if the protocol on social policy were not incorporated in domestic law? Earlier this year, the Law Officers advised—as the House was told on 15 February—that if the amendment were carried, Acts adopted under the protocol would still not apply to the United Kingdom. It follows that no rights and obligations arise from those Acts which need to be given effect in our domestic law.
While incorporation of the protocol in domestic law is desirable, it is not necessary for ratification or for implementation of the Maastricht treaty. That is what I explained to the House on 15 February. There is no change of position. That is what my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General explained to the House on 22 February. That is the view and the analysis to which we hold today.

Mr. Robert Maclennan: Will the Foreign Secretary explain why he takes the view that the provision on the social chapter does not require to be ratified in accordance with the procedures of Parliament set out in the European Assembly Elections Act 1978, sections 6(1) and 6(2) of which require any measures flowing from an agreement of European Community countries which affect the powers of the European Parliament to be approved by Parliament? It seems to me that that makes it a necessity for the House to approve the social chapter. If the amendment is not passed, that cannot happen.

Mr. Hurd: That point has been raised by Liberal Democrat Members previously and there has been correspondence about it. But I am advised that clause 1(2) of the Bill specifically deals with and covers that point. Therefore, the hon. Gentleman's point does not contradict the analysis that I have been given. The point has been covered previously and the hon. Gentleman has returned to it.

Sir Peter Tapsell: Will my right hon. Friend explain something which puzzles a great many laymen such as myself and has done so for many months? If the social protocol is apparently so unimportant, why was the opt-out described as the main achievement of the Maastricht negotiation when my right hon. Friend returned from Maastricht?

Mr. Hurd: My hon. Friend is, indeed—I do not blame him for this, because I have wandered through these tracks myself—showing himself to be a layman. The opt-out is in the treaty. The protocol is attached to the treaty. The protocol is part of the treaty. Its status in the treaty is not affected by the amendment. I am seeking to show,

following the advice from my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General, that the effect of the amendment is simply on the question whether the opt-out protocol should be embodied in domestic law. Its status in the treaty and its value as an opt-out are not affected by the amendment, because the opt-out remains in the treaty.

Dr. John Cunningham: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Hurd: I shall come to the right hon. Gentleman's point in a moment.
The effect of the amendment—here I repeat the answer that I have just given to my hon. Friend the Member for East Lindsey (Sir P. Tapsell)—would be to remove the social protocol from those parts of the treaty to be incorporated into domestic law. However, as no obligations on the United Kingdom which require incorporation under the 1972 Act arise from the social protocol, the amendment would not prevent ratification.
The question of administrative costs has been raised by several of my hon. Friends. My right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General has already advised how that obligation, if it ever arose, could be discharged. So those of my right hon. and hon. Friends who believe that passing the amendment would prevent ratification of the treaty are, in our judgment and according to our legal advice, incorrect.
Then there is the other, completely opposite, contrary and contradictory group who support the amendment. It is a larger group and is on the Opposition Benches. It accepts that the amendment will not prevent ratification of the treaty, but argues that it will force Britain to accept the agreement annexed to the protocol on social policy. We tried in a gentle way to press the right hon. Member for Copeland on that point during his speech. He moved sharply from the supposition that the amendment would have the effect that he described to some other vague talk about the consequences that would flow from it.
We are all experts on consequences that might flow from this or that, but that is not the same as saying that a vote for the amendment is a vote to bring Britain into the social chapter. The amendment does not have that effect either. It cannot do so because it is the treaty—I repeat the reply that I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for East Lindsey—which contains Britain's opt-out from the social agreement. The treaty cannot be amended by our debates on the Bill.
It will be for the House, at the end of all these exhaustive discussions, to decide on Third Reading whether to pass the Bill and thus enable the Government to ratify the treaty when the Bill comes into force. That is a decision for this Parliament. It will relate to the whole Maastricht package—that is to say, to the treaty including the protocols. The treaty is not a package—there are other matters that the House has debated and on which it has voted against the Government, which relate not to the treaty but to peripheral matters—but the treaty is not a package from which one can pick and choose. The House must and will soon decide whether it wishes to proceed with the legislation that makes ratification possible.

Mr. Michael Lord: My right hon. Friend has said that some Conservative Members do not want the Maastricht treaty or the social chapter. He has explained how a vote for this amendment will not necessarily damage the treaty. Will he confirm the


statement that he made in one of our earlier debates, that a vote for this amendment will not in any way be a vote for bringing the social chapter to this country?

Mr. Hurd: That is a point which I am now developing. The Opposition Front-Bench Members are wrong and my hon. Friend is right: it does not have that effect. It simply concerns whether the protocol which allows 11 other countries to proceed down this path should be incorporated into domestic law.

Mr. George Robertson: rose——

Mr. Hurd: No, if I may proceed.

Hon. Members: Oh.

Mr. Robertson: The Secretary of State has said on a number of occasions, and again today, that amendment No. 27 and now amendment No. 2 are undesirable, but he will not tell the House why they are undesirable. Previously, he said that he wanted to defeat amendment No. 27 for the sake of completeness and clarity. If the passing of amendment No. 27 is undesirable and will leave the Bill unclear and imprecise, will the Secretary of State tell the House the consequences of that? He consistently refuses to do so.

Mr. Hurd: Because I have not reached that part of my speech. I am trying to show how the whole basis on which the Labour party, and the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) in particular, has manoeuvred, with unrivalled perseverance and occasional skill, is misguided. It does not work. My hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Central (Mr. Lord) is entirely right. It is a false supposition that has brought the Labour party, through all this ingenuity and this maze of amendments, to this particular position.

Mr. Nicholas Budgen: rose——

Mr. Hurd: This amendment does not, and cannot be argued to, incorporate the social chapter in the treaty and therefore bind it on this country. What the House has achieved is an undertaking, soon to be embodied in law. that there will be a debate on the substance, but that debate does not flow from this amendment or from this discussion.

Mr. Budgen: rose——

Mr. Hurd: I will give way to my hon. Friend before I close.
4.45 pm
In view of what the right hon. Member for Copeland said about other partners and their views, I would remind the House that all those states——

Mr. Budgen: rose——

Mr. Hurd: I will give way to my hon. Friend, arid then not give way later.

Mr. Budgen: In view of my right hon. Friend's answer to our hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Central (Mr. Lord), does he agree that when the Home Secretary and the chairman of the Conservative party addressed the conference at Harrogate, knowing the advice that the Attorney-General had given to my right hon. Friend, it was rather unfortunate that it was said that any

Conservative Member who voted for amendment No. 27 was voting for the imposition of the social chapter on this country?

Mr. Hurd: I cannot recall the phrases or the dates on which they were used, but we shall see when we come to the debate which follows from clause 5. That will be the test because there will be no doubt then that we are voting on the substance of the social chapter. That is its purpose. So we will perhaps remember these exchanges on that occasion.
I should like to finish the point that I had started on. The right hon. Member for Copeland drew attention to our alleged isolation on the substance of this matter, but all those states that have already ratified the treaty have ratified the social protocol—that is to say, the British opt-out—along with the rest of the treaty. Despite their supposed preference that Britain should join them in the social chapter, they have not made a point of it or held up ratification on this issue. It is only the Labour party, to the constant puzzlement of its friends abroad, which persists in giving this matter priority.
The amendment, therefore, would not achieve either of the contradictory purposes of its backers. It could not possibly achieve both. It does not, in our view, achieve either.

Dr. John Cunningham: I am just wondering about the right hon. Gentleman as his speech unfolds. He has already repudiated his right hon. Friend the Minister of State in his own Department and now he has repudiated the view of his right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary. How many other colleagues' views will he repudiate in the ramshackle argument that he is advancing to the House?

Mr. Hurd: I am not sure why I gave way to the right hon. Gentleman, because I stand absolutely on the statement, the analysis and the advice which we gave on 15 February on the essence of the matter and which my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General repeated on 22 February. That is our position and our advice. The two groups advocating this amendment cannot achieve their purpose by its passage.
What would the effect of the amendment be? It would depart—and here I come to why the Bill was drafted as it was—from our consistent legislative practice, which has been to list all amendments to the treaty of Rome in the 1972 Act. That has been the practice over the years. It has not been essential, but it has been desirable, for obvious reasons, to avoid possible confusion in British law. That is why we argued against amendment No. 27 and that is why, other things being equal, it will be desirable for the Bill to proceed as originally drafted. It comes under the heading of "desirable", and we have made that position clear ever since 15 February.

Mr. John Wilkinson (Ruislip-Northwood): rose——

Mr. Hurd: May I just complete this point?
That is why we have argued that this amendment, like amendment No. 27 before it, is undesirable. Although it neither forces Britain to adopt the social agreement nor prevents ratification of the Maastricht treaty, that is why we have argued that it is none the less undesirable and that it would be preferable to incorporate the protocol in our


domestic law in the usual way. That is the reason for the original drafting of the Bill and for the way in which we have phrased the arguments ever since.

Mr. Wilkinson: In what way would it be desirable for the British people to be called upon to pay for the imposition of the social chapter to which they are not a signatory? We are already the second highest net contributor to the Community. How would it benefit the British people? Would the elimination of this protocol not at least make payment by the British people more difficult?

Mr. Hurd: If the protocol were eliminated from the treaty, that would be so, but the amendment does not and cannot have that effect. I do not know whether there will be additional administrative expenses. It is a question of dividing electric light bills and salaries. But if there were, it would be entirely legal and reasonable that, through the procedures that I have already listed, those expenses should be met.
We are faced with an alliance of opposites and we must counter that. Their purpose is not to consider the opt-out on its merits—there will be an opportunity to do that in the debate on clause 5 of the Bill. I do not doubt, relying on the good sense of my hon. Friends on the Government Benches, that when we come to the debate on substance under clause 5, the House will confirm again its support for the opt-out. The only common purpose of those favouring the amendment is to inflict a defeat on the Government, which is reasonable and understandable from the point of view of the Opposition. I do not see why, in the circumstances that I have described, we should give them that satisfaction. [Interruption.] As I have tried to show—and I think that the argument has been listened to with patience—this amendment is tiresome, undesirable, but, in practice, irrelevant.
The Government are prepared to acquiesce on the amendment—[Interruption.]—on the basis that I have explained, rather than give our push-me pull-you opponents the entirely synthetic victory, revealed by their cackles, that they crave.

Sir Russell Johnston: Well, well, there we are. The Foreign Secretary, in another context a few moments ago, said that the attitude to the social chapter adopted by the Opposition parties was a constant puzzlement to our friends abroad. I would have said that the Foreign Secretary's various speeches about the social chapter certainly well merit that particular description.
We are now told, in the presence of the Attorney-General, that legislation is cast in a manner in which things are put in that are preferable and desirable—not necessary, but preferable and desirable. I am no lawyer, but all my lawyer friends—of whom I have, sadly, quite a number—always tell me that the essence of legislation is the words that it contains, all of which are necessary. I presume that that is why all legislation is so spare and lean.
In any event, the Liberal Democrats contend that, far from being simply preferable and desirable, the words contained in the amendment which the Government have now accepted are necessary and have certain definite effects. That is a view which the Foreign Secretary contests, but he will have to admit that it is held by a considerable number of persons of very considerable legal

reputation. There is no doubt that, by accepting this amendment, in due course of time a legal challenge will be made and it will then be determined whether we and others are right or the Government are right. Our contention, in essence, is that the Maastricht treaty and the social protocol to it are separate legal entities. That is also made clear in clause 1(2) of the Bill. We would therefore argue—as did my hon. Friend the Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) when he intervened on the Foreign Secretary—that if amendment No. 2 is accepted, as it now is, while it will not affect ratification of the treaty about which the Foreign Secretary agrees, it will compel the Government to renegotiate the social protocol with the other 11 member states. Even if the Government deny this, it is our contention that in time a challenge to the European Court will reveal them to be wrong. That will not force the Government to accept the social chapter—in the end we cannot force them to accept it despite our various efforts.
The Foreign Secretary talked about an alliance of opposites. I agree with him; I have said in other speeches that there was a putative alliance of opposites.

Mr. Patrick Cormack: An unholy alliance.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: It must be if I voted with him.

Sir Russell Johnston: The knowledge of the hon. Member for Staffordshire, South (Mr. Cormack) on ecclesiastical matters is greater than my own.

Mr. Skinner: Bishop Cormack.

Sir Russell Johnston: I have lost the thread of my argument.

Mr. Skinner: The hon. Gentleman should sit down while he is winning.

Sir Russell Johnston: I was talking about the putative alliance between the Euro-sceptics on the Conservative Benches, the Labour party and the Liberal Democrats, who would have united to support an amendment to the social chapter—in the alliance one group favours Maastricht, the other group sees it as a means of defeating Maastricht.
There is another group in the House, however, consisting of a number of Conservative Members who do not fear the social chapter. I am sure that the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath), the former Prime Minister, does not fear the social chapter; nor that it will have all the horrific consequences that have been spelt out at various times by various Ministers, by and large in a fairly unclear way. Those hon. Members in the Conservative party—the one-nation Tories—are not afraid, in their political attitudes, to accept that the state has a responsibility to ensure that certain minimum social standards are sustained and, if necessary, legislated upon. A considerable number of people in the Conservative party hold that view, but given the nature of the voting structure of the House they would be compelled to vote against what they want. So the Foreign Secretary, in talking about this alliance of opposites—and I agree that he has a fair point—omits the other group that is equally important.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: It is always a great pleasure to listen to the hon. Gentleman; I think that he adds a great deal to these debates. As a constitutionalist, would he not agree that it would he very odd for a Government of this country to ratify a treaty—whether or not that was legal—part of which Parliament had voted to exclude in a democratic debate on the Floor of the House?
Would the hon. Gentleman respond to that question and expand on the relevant point raised by his hon. Friend the Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) about the European Assembly Elections Act 1978 relating to the authority of the House in respect of the particular matter to which the hon. Gentleman drew our attention?

Sir Russell Johnston: 1 am grateful for the kind remarks with which the hon. Gentleman commenced his intervention. I take note of them and will, of course, immediately give way to him the next time he tries to intervene.
As to the first point that the hon. Gentleman made, I do not think that if this House voted to exclude the social protocol—and indeed the contention I was making at the very beginning of my remarks was that, although we have not voted about it, because amendment No. 2 has been accepted, it has had the same consequences—I do not take the view that that necessarily means that the Government is prevented in any way from ratifying the main treaty. That is what I said at the beginning, and perhaps I am repeating myself because I did not make myself clear. So, as to the first point the hon. Gentleman made, the answer is no.
As to the second point, I confess that I was not entirely clear about what difference he was making, but the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) stands on its own; we think that the European Assembly Elections Act 1978 has the legal consequence to which my hon. Friend referred.
I will not delay the House; we know what the situation is. We have already spent twenty one and three quarter hours debating the social chapter in Committee—I had that checked earlier—and that does not include the three and a half hours we spent querying your decision, Mr. Morris. That is a very long time.
So while any complaint about our not having spent sufficient time debating the social chapter cannot be substantiated—because we have had ample opportunity to debate it. I deeply regret the way in which the Government were unwilling to make it possible for the House to express a decision on the subject.
While much has been said about an alliance of opposites, it must be accepted that such alliances are not new in the House of Commons. Hon. Members vote on various occasions for all sorts of reasons, and in some cases because they are dragooned to do what they really do not want to do. There is nothing startling or different about what has happened. Even so, I regret that we were not given an opportunity to express a decision on the matter.
At the end of the day, amendment No. 2 is accepted. I regard that as a step towards Britain being in a position to take advantage of the safeguards that the social chapter represents. That is why I greatly welcome the Government's decision to accept the amendment.

5 pm

Sir Teddy Taylor: In the agreeable and gentlemanly way in which we expect my right hon. Friend to address the House, the Foreign Secretary revealed how amendment No. 2 is the joke of the week. Perhaps we should have a quiet chuckle, go home and say, "It was all a misunderstanding." Joke or not, a few issues arise from what has happened and they will not go away.
I begin with one such issue on a personal basis. We must try to do something to improve communications between Ministers. The Foreign Secretary will recall that he had the pleasure of attending the Harrogate conference. While I am fortunate in having a pleasant and easy-going constituency, many of my hon. Friends have been through the most appalling experience of receiving threatening letters and of being accused of selling out the Conservative party because they proposed to vote for the mad communist policy of the social chapter in the form of amendment No. 27.
While the Foreign Secretary may regard that as a joke, I assure him that it was not a joke for decent, honourable Conservative Members who, unwillingly, were voting against their party in an effort to put right what they believed to be wrong and contrary to the interests of their country. We had Cabinet Ministers standing up at Harrogate speaking what they knew was basically a load of rubbish, and later they admitted it was rubbish.

Mr. Ian Taylor: I appreciate that my hon. Friend is extremely agitated on that point. So that he and the rest of us may be more at rest, will he assure us that when it comes to the vote on new clause 74—which will be a vote of principle on the question whether Britain should sign up to the social protocol—he will vote with the Government?

Sir Teddy Taylor: My hon. Friend knows that I have always taken that view and I will answer his question directly. The whole issue of the social chapter represents the most bogus nonsense I have ever heard in my life. 1 t is the culmination of party virility symbols, with the Conservative party saying, "This is terrible communist conspiratorial nonsense" and the Labour party saying, "Poor British workers will not have the same rights as foreigners."
When replying to comments of mine recently, the Foreign Secretary was kind enough to explain some of what was in the social chapter which was not in the rest of the document. He gave me a list of small items—for example, redundancy payments—which previously required unanimity but which would require a majority vote. But we would like to know—perhaps it can be discovered from the Commission—what on earth can be done under the social chapter which cannot already be done under the health and safety legislation. An examination of an issue such as the 48-hour week directive shows that there is nothing much in it, apart from social security, subject of course to unanimity.

Mr. Marlow: My hon. Friend was misinformed if he was told that the Foreign Secretary said what he said he said, because how a contract is terminated—in other words, redundancy pay—is a matter for unanimity.

Sir Teddy Taylor: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I am simply making the point that it has become a party virility symbol, with people waving their arms about. But,


sadly, the ordinary people have been left out because, for reasons of which we are well aware, the issue has become all-important.
My hon. Friend the Member for Esher (Mr. Taylor) asks if I can be trusted to vote the right way. While I can be so trusted, it would not make a great deal of difference whichever way I voted. But I assure him that he can count on my straightforward loyalty, the sort of loyalty that he always gives the Government, irrespective of the issue.
It is genuinely worrying that there should have been such a huge difference in the assessment of legal opinion by the Government. It may be regarded as a joke, but for a senior Government Minister—on the advice of officials of our splendid Foreign Office, who can always be relied on to tell the truth about everything—to say that under the terms of amendment No. 27 it would be impossible for the United Kingdom to ratify the treaty, represents a carefully thought out and clear statement of principle. Now we are told that that is a load of nonsense and that it will have no such effect.
The Foreign Secretary is one of the more gentlemanly members of the Government and a decent chap, too. He should worry about the possibility that those sorts of statement are being made, not in an effort to set the facts before people but simply to gather cheap votes in the House of Commons.
I am in no way suggesting that the Liberal Democrats, for whom I have high regard, are cheap people, but they will be well aware of what happened in the debate. One might gather from what was being put to the Liberal Democrats that they are about the only people in the House who believe all the European nonsense, for they were being told, in effect, "If you vote for the amendment, you might put your Europe at risk." We should worry about that.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I invite my hon. Friend to answer the question that I put in an intervention to the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Sir R. Johnston). Does he consider it constitutionally appropriate that the British Government should ratify a treaty to which the social protocol has been attached when the House has agreed that the social protocol should not be part of the treaty? What is the point of having protracted debates if the Government then do precisely what the House has said they should not do?

Sir Teddy Taylor: My hon. Friend makes an important point that should concern hon. Members, but we need not worry too much about it in terms of European legislation because the Government have said, "We can chuck out the protocol from British law. But do not worry because we shall still stick it in the treaty and that will be that." In other words, the Government will support amendment No. 2, by which they will remove the protocol from British law, although, according to what was said in the previous debate, it will be included in the treaty which will be ratified. If I am wrong about that, perhaps the Foreign Secretary will correct me.

Mr. Hurd: Ratified, subject of course to my hon. Friends and the House as a whole approving the Third Reading.

Sir Teddy Taylor: My right hon. Friend is correct. He is saying that even though we have voted to chuck out and tear up that part of the treaty—because we are not prepared to have the protocol in the treaty—nevertheless, it will be in the treaty that Britain signs.
I hope that my right hon. Friend will ask his colleagues in the Foreign Office, who always tell the truth about everything, to say how many times in the history of the United Kingdom a Government have ratified a treaty from which the House of Commons has said that a part should be excluded. There must be hundreds of such examples and we await all the papers flowing to us showing the House voting to remove a clause from a treaty and then the Government of the day ratifying it. Being a simple person, I am not aware of such a case. There must be something significant about that.

Mr. Ian Taylor: My hon. Friend is developing a completely bogus argument. If the amendment is accepted tonight, the impact of the social protocol will be excluded from clause I. But given, under the social protocol in the treaty, that we opted out in any event, the terms of the social protocol would not have applied in the first place. That is why the Attorney-General said that it was a double negative. There is absolutely no restriction on the Government, subject to Third Reading and the Bill passing through both Houses, seeking Royal Assent and ratifying the treaty.

Sir Teddy Taylor: My hon. Friend has a strange idea of what we are meant to do in the House of Commons. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer were to say that the Finance Bill would contain a new tax on red ties, the House voted against that tax, and the Chancellor went ahead with the Finance Bill all the same, some of us might be angry.

Mr. Milligan: The fault in my hon. Friend's logic is that if the House of Commons were to vote for us to sign the social chapter and we did not, it would be in defiance of the wishes of the House, but the amendment is unclear on that issue.

Sir Teddy Taylor: My hon. Friend, who has recently become a Member of Parliament, is a guardian of democracy and a regular attender of our debates. Unlike most of those who voted for the treaty, he has often been in the Chamber. When hon. Members vote to have something chucked out of the treaty—which is what we are doing with amendment No. 2 because we do not want the protocol—that action should be significant. However, it is being said that such action has nothing to do with it and the protocol is not an opt-out.

Mr. Marlow: It is a simple matter. The Government came before the House with a treaty. The House has torn out some of its pages and thrown them away. Given the sovereignty of the House, how can the Government proceed to ratify the treaty when it has pages missing?

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: That is it in a nutshell.

Sir Teddy Taylor: Yes, my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) has put it in a nutshell. My lengthy speech has given the Foreign Office boys plenty of time to compile a list of the previous occasions when the House of Commons has voted to take something out of a treaty, then proceeded to ratify the treaty. I am sure that many examples have now been gathered and the Minister of State will list them.
Despite the fact that honest, decent and respectable Members of Parliament have fought hard on their constituents' behalf, those Members have been accused by Ministers and leaders of the Tory party of being conspirators and of wanting to impose communist and socialist policies on this country. We now know—indeed, we always did—that the protocol merely achieves two little things.

Mr. Richard Shepherd: The oldest fight for the House of Commons is the fight against legislative authority and prerogative power. Are not we having a rerun of Charles I versus Parliament? [Laughter.]

Sir Teddy Taylor: My hon. Friend is right. Some hon. Members may laugh, but I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes) knows that many people in Harrow share my views, not his—although they all love him.
I hope that it is appreciated that the Maastricht treaty is destroying our democracy. It means that people who vote——

Mr. Terry Dicks: I had the impression—perhaps wrongly—that the Single European Act took away much of our power. Who steered it through the House? Baroness Thatcher, Lord Tebbit and many others who are now called rebels, like the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash). Their voting record on Europe was better than that of the hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes). How can my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) say that the Maastricht treaty threatens us and the Single European Act did not?

Sir Teddy Taylor: I have a high regard for my hon. Friend, but he knows that I fought against the Single European Act and voted against every clause of the Bill. However, that is not at issue. It does not help the genuine argument to state that the previous Prime Minister was worse than the present one. I am talking not about that, but of the rights of my hon. Friend's constituents and the rights of the British people. It does not matter to me who voted for what—all I know is that something had has happened.
What does the protocol include? It does not include many of the issues that some people said it did. It says that the 11 members can use the institutions to implement their social chapter and that British taxpayers—my constituents and others—will have to pay a 12th share. The Foreign Secretary, who is always helpful with legal advice, said that even if we chucked the social chapter out of the Bill it would not matter because
the likelihood is that they"—
the costs—
will be a charge upon the Consolidated Fund, as authorised under the 1972 legislation."—[official Report, 15 February 1993; Vol. 219, c. 33.]
5.15 pm
My understanding of the 1972 legislation was that it authorised us to pay for Community obligations—obligations of the 12 members, not obligations of six, seven, eight or nine members. We are talking about an agreement of the 11. There is a serious problem—goodness knows how we can resolve it. The problem can probably be solved only in the courts of law. We know that if the Government want to ratify the treaty, including the protocol, many British citizens will consider it wrong. They will say, "If our Parliament has voted against paying

for a twelfth share of the administrative costs and the Government say that they can do so under the 1972 legislation, we think that the issue should be clarified in a court of law." I think that it is inevitable that a British citizen will want the matter to be clarified in that way.
Unfortunately, despite the attempts to call the matter a big joke, it could result in a long delay for the treaty's ratification. I do not know anything about the law—the Minister of State knows it all. I am told that when a European issue is taken to court, one is sometimes told that the matter will have to go to the European Court, which could involve even more delay.
The House should appreciate that something nasty has happened over amendments Nos. 27 and 2. A lot of rubbish has been spoken and people have been wrongly abused and misled. We have created a bit of legal nonsense. I prophesy that the amendment could result in a long delay in the ratification of the Maastricht treaty. We could end up with people having rows and disputes and the lawyers earning more money through discussions in court.
It would have been easier and simpler if our pleasant Foreign Secretary and our clever Government had avoided the trouble and prevented the embarrassment caused to the Labour party by simply saying that we should let the people decide such a big issue with a referendum. If the Labour party had wanted it, the referendum could have included a second question: "If you approve of the treaty, do you want it to include the social chapter?" If we had had a referendum and let the people decide what should happen to their powers, freedom and liberty, the lengthy debates, nastiness, disagreements and unfortunate incidents that we have witnessed would have been unnecessary.
What has happened today has not been a joke, but a sad reflection on the way in which we have managed the dreadful treaty. The freedom and liberty of the British people belong to the people, not the politicians. We have no right to hand over those powers without asking the people first.

Mr. Bryan Gould: I am not one of those who believe that a great deal turns on the protocol or the social agreement. Anyone who reads the protocol and the social agreement will have to concede that the terms are astonishingly vague and general. It is hard to see that they achieve anything that is not equally well achieved elsewhere in the treaty of Rome and other provisions. The lie to the contrary argument was conclusively given by my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-East (Mr. Leighton) in his contribution to the substantive debate that we held some months ago.
It is easy to see why the respective Front Bench teams want to pretend that the issue is one of great substance. The Labour Front Bench team finds it convenient to use its support for the social agreement as a stick with which to beat the Government, so giving the illusion of firm opposition while ensuring that the substantive measure—the Bill—is passed, effectively unamended.
It is equally easy to see why the Prime Minister is a willing participant in that charade. He has to explain to Conservative Members, the House and the country why he has accepted a treaty that runs so contrary to our interests. Therefore, he hopes to bamboozle the ideologues among his hon. Friends by saying that he has secured a signal victory on a matter of great importance. The truth is that


it is not a matter of great importance, so it is perhaps a little peculiar that we have debated at length a protocol that has such a limited effect.
I am one of those who would rather not have the treaty, but if we are to have it I would, on balance, rather have the protocol and the social agreement—modest and marginally helpful little pieces of verbiage. So if a vote is called this evening, I will be happy to vote for the Labour amendment.
What is much more important—I do not believe that any of the supporters or opponents of the social protocol would dispute this—for the purposes of our debate today is not the effect of carrying or failing to carry the amendment; it is the effect—the procedural, legal and constitutional effect—on the future of the Bill and the treaty. That is what preoccupies us this evening, and rightly so.
The real question is: if we carry this amendment, what will be the impact on the Government's ability to ratify the treaty? At first glance, some Ministers will argue that the decision taken by the House of Commons does not count. They will try to say that by running away from a Division they have disarmed those who have forced the amendment through. Let us be under no illusion about what has happened, however. It does not matter whether this decision is imposed on the Government by a majority vote or whether the Government simply yield to the will of Parliament. At the end of the evening Parliament will decide, and it will decide to accept the amendment and hence to exclude from the Bill the social protocol.
Then there will be those who mutter, perhaps from the Conservative Back Benches, that we can disregard this decision because the motivations of those who support it are so at variance and, indeed, contradictory. That may well be true, but it is also true of many decisions that we take in this House. If anyone ever inquired into some of our decisions, the results would doubtless be somewhat unedifying. In almost every case we would discover that the primary reason why most of our colleagues vote on a given issue is the fact that they are told to do so by the Whips—and had there been a Division this evening, that would have been true of this occasion as well.
The truth is that it does not matter a toss what our motivations are. They will always vary; they will always be inconsistent; it is never profitable or necessary to inquire into what they may be. What matters is the decision of the House. So the amendment is to be carried and the Bill will carry on its face a statement of the House's hostility to the opt-out protocol.
What are the legal consequences of this decision? The first question to be asked is: what is the consequence for domestic law? After all, the purpose of the Bill is not to ratify the treaty: it is to incorporate those parts of the treaty that need incorporation into domestic law. The House will say that it does not wish to incorporate the protocol in domestic law. On that question it might be assumed that there is a great deal of circumstantial evidence to suggest that this matters a great deal; otherwise, why would the Government have insisted when they drafted the Bill that this provision should be included in it and thus incorporated into domestic law? Incidentally, the Foreign Secretary was rather disingenuous when he tried to explain, quite wrongly, that it

was a matter of convention that all amendments to the treaty of Rome were listed and therefore incorporated. The very Bill with which we are dealing distinguishes between the parts of the amending treaty which are to be incorporated and the parts which are not.
The Government must explain why they incorporated the protocol in the parts of the treaty which they believed had to be incorporated in domestic law, and why they have since changed their mind, saying now that it does not matter.
For a long period the legal advice, as one would suppose in this context, was that a refusal to incorporate the provision in domestic law would create a real problem for the Government. It is surely common ground that if a disparity arises between our commitments as incorporated in domestic law and the commitments that we undertake under treaty law, it becomes impossible for the Government to ratify the treaty. This could hardly, therefore, be of more central importance.
So we have the mystery not only of the original drafting but of the sustained legal advice to the effect that, in accordance with the drafting, a failure to incorporate would make for real problems. Then there was the further mystery, even once the legal advice had been magically changed, that it was still the Government's position that they would resist this amendment to the utmost. The fact that they have now faced the inevitable does not alter the fact that, until an hour ago, as far as we knew, the Government attached considerable importance to voting down the amendment.
So all the presumptions must be that a failure to incorporate the protocol makes a great deal of difference. Nevertheless, speaking as a lawyer—sometimes it is not wise to admit that—I am inclined to take the view that the Attorney-General's opinion is likely to be proved right: that the Government, having had second and better thoughts, have, on the balance of probabilities, come up with the right answer. Incidentally, we are told in interviews and statements conducted outside the House that the Attorney-General has ruled on the matter. We should remember that he is not a court of law; he is simply offering an opinion which may or may not be correct. We wait to see, if it is tested in the courts, whether it proves correct.

Mr. Skinner: We are often told that we debate legislation in this place in a way that is different from how other nations in the Common Market debate theirs—we discuss it line by line and clause by clause. As the Speaker has selected this amendment, it must be a valid amendment or it could not have been selected. Would not a court of law, therefore, say that the amendment must, prima facie, be in order and fit for incorporation in our law? Would not that argument carry more weight than the Attorney-General's statement to the House?

Mr. Gould: My hon. Friend makes a further persuasive point on the side of the argument that there must have been a purpose in incorporating the provision—or attempting to—in the first place, so failing to incorporate it must have some legal consequence.
Let us return to my personal view—it is the best that I can arrive at—which is that the Attorney-General, on balance, would be the favourite to win if the issue were litigated in a court of law. That is not to say that he would win. There is a powerful argument to be made along the


lines of what my hon. Friends the Members for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) and for Ashfield (Mr. Hoon) have said, to the effect that the absence of the exclusion of the social agreement, as achieved by the protocol, might matter to domestic law. I confess that I find it a little difficult to think of a case in point, but one would not be beyond the bounds of possibility.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: Perhaps my hon. Friend has discovered a sliver of a case that the Foreign Secretary might have had for completeness and clarity's sake. There is a major flaw in the argument, however. Clearly, the legal advisers in the Foreign Office who advised the Minister of State and the adviser-in-chief to the Attorney-General hold views that are widely differing. The former say that adoption would preclude ratification, the latter that the issue is more or less neutral and does not matter either way. My hon. Friend may have some knowledge of the legal department in the Foreign Office; it appears that the Government did not even get their legal arguments straight before the right hon. Member for Watford (Mr. Garel-Jones) delivered his initial opinion.

Mr. Gould: The fact that the Foreign Office legal advisers and the Attorney-General's legal advisers reached diametrically opposite conclusions makes the point, which is surely apparent to everybody and which perhaps I am somewhat labouring, that no one can be certain. As my hon. Friend suggested, I happen to know the Foreign Office chief legal adviser, Mr. Frank Berman, who is an excellent lawyer. I would be astonished if he had not based his conclusion on powerful and convincing legal argument. As we have not been privileged to see the detail of the argument, either for or against, my best estimate is that the Attorney-General might prevail.
However, the point that I wish to emphasise is that it would be worth while if an appropriate case could be found to test the matter in the courts. If the Attorney-General turned out to be wrong, that would be—I am sure my hon. Friend would agree—a bar to the Government's being able to ratify the treaty. All that I can say to those who are contemplating litigating on the issue is that it should be done soon, as the possibility of getting a judicial review of a statute is pretty slight.

Mr. Wilkinson: Could the hon. Gentleman give us his learned opinion on a matter that I referred to my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, but on which he gave no reply because by then, in naval parlance, he was already making smoke prior to withdrawal? As the protocol will be eliminated by acceptance of the amendment by Her Majesty's Government, will there be no obligation in British law to accept its provisions? Does that mean that the United Kingdom could get away with not paying its contribution to the costs of the administration of the social charter on behalf of the others who have signed it, or will the European Court oblige us to pay our contribution to that to which we are not a signatory?

Mr. Gould: The hon. Gentleman raises what I can best describe as a "colourable" argument. If a citizen could overcome the problems of locus standi, which in my view are never as great as they are said to be, that argument might lead to a justiciable issue on which a court might

have to decide. In those circumstances, there is at least a chance that the court will decide against the Attorney-General and in favour of the Foreign Office legal advice.

Mr. Marlow: The hon. Gentleman has said that he knows all about the Foreign Office legal department. If that case were to come before the court, does the hon. Gentleman think that it would be beneficial, indeed essential, that those in the Foreign Office who gave their legal advice came before the court and explained the legal advice?

Mr. Gould: I am sure that means might be found to produce that sort of expression of opinion if the matter were ever litigated.
I want to pass on to a second possible aspect of tonight's decision. It is not the obstacle to ratification that would be imposed by some disparity between the treaty and domestic law. Rather, it is the effect of the statement by the House on the propriety of the Government exercising their prerogative power to ratify a treaty in defiance of what the House has said. Everybody concedes—it is a well-established part of our constitution—that the power to ratify a treaty is a prerogative power that is not to be affected, at least not easily or directly, by the deliberations of the House. Some would argue that it is not even justiciable in the courts.
However, as often happens in such cases, a convention has grown up. It was established nearly 70 years ago and given the title the Ponsonby rule. It is the convention that certain treaties of major importance should not be ratified in the exercise of prerogative power without being laid before Parliament for 21 days. That practice has varied and has sometimes been abandoned, but nevertheless it has been a pretty constant feature of our practice over that 70-year period. One can only assume that the whole purpose of laying the treaty for 21 days so that Parliament can consider it is to enable Parliament to express an opinion.
What we do not know, as far as I am aware, is what would happen if Parliament expressed a view that was contrary to the treaty—if Parliament said, "We don't want you to ratify the treaty." We certainly do not know that in the European context because in the case of the great Acts of Parliament that preceded the Bill—in 1972, 1986 and so on—no such attempt to change the treaty or express a different view from that in the treaty succeeded. This is novel. We are in uncharted territory. We simply do not know what would be the court's view--or even whether it would accept that there was a justiciable case—if it was asked in such circumstances whether it would be right for the Government to ratify the treaty in defiance of a solemn expression of opinion by the House of Commons.

Mr. Peter Shore: My hon. Friend said that there was no precedent for that happening. Has he dismissed from his memory, or thought not appropriate, the case of the Laval pact of 1934? The rejection of that pact by the House led to the abandonment of it and the resignation of the Foreign Secretary.

Mr. Gould: That is an interesting precedent. Perhaps I should refine the point that I am making. What would be the consequence of the House saying that it was prepared to endorse the treaty as a whole, but that it objected to part of it? That creates a problem. Everybody concedes that one cannot ratify in part. One either ratifies a treaty or one


does not. Let us imagine that we were arguing the case before a court, although nobody can be sure that we could get it before a court. No doubt the Government would say that Parliament has endorsed the treaty by a majority on Second Reading and on the paving debate. Those on the other side would say that, in a subsequent vote, Parliament made it clear—that has nothing to do with legislation because we are doing two separate things at the same time—that, quite apart from what happens in legislation, its solemn view is that it does not want the protocol.
Unfortunately for us, it is not open for us to say that we do not want the protocol in the treaty because that is not a judgment for us to take. We can do only two things—decide what goes into domestic law and, in accordance with the conventions, express a view on whether this is a treaty that we can support and which the Government are therefore authorised to ratify. I argue that, in accepting the amendment, we would not only change the Bill but we would make it as clear as it could conceivably be made clear that the House of Commons, unanimously—for whatever reasons—does not want the protocol. That is the judgment of the House.
We therefore need to know the consequence of that. All that I suggest is that, quite apart from the obstacles that might arise from the interpretation of domestic law, there may be, in accordance with constitutional convention, some inhibition on the Government's ratifying the treaty in those circumstances, particularly when, as is inevitable, we come to vote on Third Reading. A vote for the Bill on Third Reading will not be a vote for the treaty, but will be a vote, as far as we can engineer it, for part of the treaty but shorn of the protocol. We shall have done it twice and we can hardly do it in more solemn, considered or deliberate fashion.
After all those hours of debate and all the attention. importance and significance invested in the decision, it would be inconceivable that, the House having reached such a view and expressed it in the most solemn form open to it and, through the agency of people such as myself, pointed to the consequences in terms of the Ponsonby rule and the constitutional conventions, the Government could then blithely go on and ratify the treaty.

Mr. Maclennan: Will the hon. Gentleman accept that his argument carries less force if one views the protocol as a separate international agreement not affected by the ratification of the treaty as a whole? Does he further accept that the internal language of the protocol makes it clear that the signatories of the protocol regarded it not as an integral agreement but as a separate agreement, although one related to the treaty, and that the failure to approve the protocol would not damage the ratification process of the treaty itself? It certainly calls into question whether it is appropriate to declare, as appears to be the Foreign Secretary's intention, that Britain will ratify the social protocol regardless of what Parliament says.

Mr. Gould: That point has been argued on a number of occasions by the hon. Gentleman and others in his party, but in all honesty I do not think that it has any merit. I speak only from memory, but I believe that the 1978 Act declared that a treaty includes the protocols and all the other bits and pieces that go with the treaty. There is no question but that the protocol is part of the treaty for the

purposes of the 1978 Act and, therefore, for the purposes of clause 1(2) of the Bill. Therefore, the hon. Gentleman's argument fails.
In addition, clause 1(2) is absolutely conclusive on the fact that, for the purposes of the 1978 Act, the treaty is approved—but that is only for the purposes of that Act and does not, in my view, touch the wider constitutional question with which I am dealing.

Mr. Spearing: Does my hon. Friend agree that, as the agreement on social policy is attached to the protocol—it could be argued that it is part of the protocol—it is annexed to the treaty? Is not it also clear that, under article 2 of the agreement, it is only through the unanimous action of the Council, on a Commission proposal to consult in the European Parliament, that the progeny of the protocol can be achieved? Therefore, it must be integral to the institutions of the Community and the treaties that establish them.

Mr. Gould: My hon. Friend must be right. In any ordinary interpretation of these matters, a protocol is part of the treaty. That was made clear in the 1978 Act. Although I sympathise with the purpose behind what the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) said, his point has no validity.
In the light of the arguments, uncertainties and confusions, it would be wrong of the Government blithely to assume that they can proceed in defiance of Parliament's will. Because of that, I want to make a particular point to my Front Bench spokesmen. We have the opportunity, if we wish, to stand up for Parliament on this issue. We can say that it is an outrage for a Government to say both in advance and in retrospect that they will pay no attention to the view of Parliament. If we are parliamentarians—and surely we are that, if nothing else—we must stand up for the authority of Parliament. The Opposition Front Bench, above all, has that obligation. The Executive will always try to get away with the issue, but the Opposition Front and Back Benchers must always be vigilant and protect Parliament.
We have it in our power to deliver a very harsh lesson to the Government if they refuse to listen to the voice of Parliament. The official Opposition can vote against Third Reading. There is no doubt that, by doing so, we can defeat the Government. Any Government posturing and blustering to the effect that they would take no notice of Parliament would be brought to a rapid conclusion. The Government would then have to sue for terms not just with us, but with their European partners. Surely that is exactly what we want, in our various ways. We want a renegotiation of the Maastricht treaty and we want to force the Government to negotiate a social agreement. So why do not we do that? I urge the Opposition Front Bench to act in the interests of Parliament and of the country and to do the job of an Opposition, which is to bring the Government to heel if they refuse to heed the voice of Parliament and persist in acting in defiance of it.

Mr. Dykes: The hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) spoke with his customary clarity and lucidity. We always listen carefully to his speeches. I agreed with much of what he said and, from the Opposition's general vantage point, I could understand his main points. However, I strongly disagree with his statement that the social


protocol and the opt-out provisions that the Government negotiated are an integral part of the treaty. I strongly agree with what the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) said on that point.
Far from it being right for the hon. Member for Dagenham to suggest that the Government are riding roughshod over the opinion of the House in respect of amendment No. 2, the reverse is true. I shall stand corrected if anyone wishes to intervene and say differently, but it is my understanding that the Government are accepting the will of the House by accepting an amendment that will change the text of clause 1.
As the hon. Gentleman rightly said, it is not the Government's fault that constitutionally, legally, juridically and in actual fact, the Bill and its text are different from the treaty. The hon. Gentleman conceded that reality. Indeed, it is the way that we deal with these matters in our international relations.
There is a difference between the Crown prerogative of the treaty and its provisions and the legislation that is needed to change some aspects of domestic law in the successive treaties that began with the treaty of Rome—when Britain was not yet a member—and then with the treaty of accession, when we decided to join. I cannot understand why hon. Members become so worked up about that point and think that the Government are being devious.
I feel no resentment towards the Opposition in general. I remind the hon. Member for Dagenham that, even if his colleagues followed his advice and voted against Third Reading, I assume that a substantial, respectable and admirable number of Opposition and other Members would support the Bill, or abstain at the very least. If that were not to be the case, it would be depressing, in view of the strong pro-European line that those hon. Members have displayed throughout our debates. We all know who I mean, and it is a considerable number of hon. Members. Perhaps they will be active in Labour party discussions between now and Third Reading to ensure that that point is conveyed.
I reserve my principal bitterness for my hon. Friends who have dealt the Government a very bad card in making unnecessary threats about amendment No. 2 and its predecessor, amendment No. 27.

Mr. Milligan: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is pretty rich for the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) and our hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor), who say that they stand up for the voice of Parliament, to be supporting an amendment that will, in effect, transfer the decision on such a vital issue to unelected judges, rather than leaving it with elected Members of Parliament?

Mr. Dykes: That is a valid point. I hope that the homespun reality that those hon. Members probably could not afford to go to the courts might be a more practical restraint on them. The cavalier references by some of my hon. Friends to taking prolonged High Court action against our own Government and party are scandalous.
I use that word with some restraint. I feel bitter about such antics. I am one Conservative Member who might be tempted to accept some aspects of the social provisions. After all, many of the leading clauses appear in the Single European Act, and the remainder follow in the Maastricht

treaty. The initial aspirations of the social provisions that will be adopted by the other II member states are written down, in the same language, in the Single European Act. We all know that.
I am probably one of those Conservative Members who would not get as worked up as others about the iniquities of the social provisions. But, bearing in mind that the Government achieved a remarkable and successful negotiation of their position vis-a-vis the Maastricht treaty and intend to ratify the overwhelming proportion of that treaty, with the exception, perhaps, of this and another segment, it is wrong and reprehensible to say the least—that is too mild a word—for my hon. Friends to threaten the Government who have a reduced majority after the election for one reason or another and a Government who were entitled to ask all their supporters to go ahead on their manifesto programme with the ratification of this important and mild treaty. The idea that there is any transfer or loss of sovereign intrinsic power from this House or any elected Government as a result of the treaty is pure garbage, and I am amazed that some hon. Members continue to repeat it.
The hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) is not in his place, but I shall mention the point that I am about to raise to him afterwards. I disagree with his interpretation of the principle and meaning of the selection of an amendment by the Chair. I in no way wish to question the selection of amendments—I know that it is a delicate and sensitive subject nowadays, so for various reasons I shall refrain from doing so—but the fact that Madam Speaker at this stage of the Bill or the Chairman of Ways and Means at earlier stages selects an amendment does not mean that it is perfectly respectable in constitutional and juridical terms. I would be surprised if that were so. The hon. Member for Dagenham agreed with that assertion by the hon. Member for Bolsover, and I think that it is literally incorrect.
A selection represents an important subject for debate and an important potential amendment or change to an important part of the Bill, but that is all. I cannot imagine that it has the purist definition of textual purity, constitutional correctness, and juridical approbation, and that therefore learned judges or legal experts outside court systems would say that the amendment was correct in all those terms. I should be surprised if that were so.
My hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East is still in the Chamber. He has been one of the best attenders of these prolongued debates, and I pay tribute to him for that. I think that he was confused about the intentions and aspirations of the public outside. I have not noticed that there are millions of people in Britain worrying about any loss of power as a result of the treaty, or that there is any great interest in it even. That is no criticism of them. I think that they regard it as a fairly routine matter. What appals them and many people in the House is the amount of time that has been spent on unnecessary debate.
I say that deliberately, and I do not mean to be anti-democratic or to say that the House does not have the right to have such prolonged debate. I do not mean that at all. I am talking about the misinterpretation of the substance of the treaty and the mischievous and mis-explanation of it for purposes to do with our original entry into the Community as a member state rather than the further development of the gradual integration of some decision making—not all—in the Community, which I find completely acceptable.

Sir Teddy Taylor: I am sorry to interrupt my hon. Friend when he has said exceptionally kind things about me, but I make him a public offer. I should be happy to donate £100 to the European Movement if he can find a majority of people in any street in his constituency who are not in favour of a referendum. I find that the vast majority of people say that they do not know about Maastricht and they want to know about it and to have a say in it. I shall go with my hon. Friend to any place in Harrow, and if the majority there do not want a referendum I shall give him £100.

Mr. Dykes: When Baroness Thatcher was Prime Minister, she stopped the grant to the European Movement in 1985, but I should be happy to accept my hon. Friend's offer for reasons unconnected with this debate. Again, my hon. Friend misunderstands what I am saying. If anyone in the street is told that he is being deprived of a say in something and asked whether he would like a say in it, the answer will be overwhelmingly yes.
Some Opposition Members say that referendums are wonderful, sacred, very important and so on and should not be limited to this subject. What about capital punishment? Others say no, there are other key subjects. If we had a referendum, we know that the result would be totally uncongenial to all members of the official Opposition. Therefore, that argument does not arise.
More important and relevant is the reality of those matters. I think that I am right in saying that, in the Newbury by-election campaign—we shall see the conclusion and result of that tomorrow and, axiomatically, I hope for a Government win and I think that there will be one—the opinion polls revealed that, despite the hysterical antics of the Euro-sceptics, the anti-Europeans and Alan Sked screaming around the town to a bemused public about the dangers and evils of federalism, the subjects of concern to people were mainly economic problems, unemployment and so on. Only 6 per cent. were concerned with the European Community.
Alan Sked, heroically and bravely, stood in Bath at the election as the anti-federal candidate against Chris Patten, now Governor of Hong Kong, and won 117 votes. An anti-federal candidate in Harrow, East won 49 votes. There is more than one such candidate standing in the Newbury by-election, and I think that we shall see a similar result tomorrow. It is nonsense to say that the public are worked up about this. What they have been worked up about are the prolonged debates, which appear to mean that even pro-Europeans in the House have voluntarily and enthusiastically chosen to spend hours on repeat debates on unnecessary amendments.
I say that in no anti-democratic spirit at all. That is the literal reality. That is what has concerned the House of Commons—this so-called sovereign and primordially important Parliament, the one that we all love—rather than the crucial economic problems that most preoccupy members of the public. In the end, that is the disturbing thing for the anti-Europeans, as well as the way in which some Conservative Members have let down the Government.
I have read again and again the legal judgment of the Attorney-General in order to convince myself that I understand it—the advice given not only to the Government but to the House on the matter—and I am satisfied with it. I think that I was also able to follow what

the Foreign Secretary was saying, and there may be further explanation and elucidation from the Government on the matter.
I do not see that any of this would impede the ratification of the treaty, which pleases me, because I am impatient for it. It will be of great, good value and good store for Britain's future welfare. That is why I am glad that, after much muddle and delay, which I regret, some of which could have been avoided, we now face that position.
I enjoin the House now to proceed on the basis of what appears to be being agreed in the debate in all parts of the House, depending on the later outcome of any votes or questions that may be put. That will then be the way to deal with the matter in the most acceptable way, without in any way reducing the basic democratic decision-making of the House of Commons in respect of an important treaty.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: In the demonology of the hon. Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor), I could be termed a true believer in the Community, but I do him the credit of being a true believer in what he says on the other side of the argument. It is from the position of a true believer that I want to ask a question of the Foreign Secretary which concerns my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) and others of us. I have, for the sake of convenience, given the officials the background against which I put the question.
The matter started with a letter on 3 April addressed to me by someone writing from Switzerland. He said:
I am sending you a copy of an advertisment which has appeared now for five consecutive weeks in the Basle Zeitung. Although obviously as a British subject working in Switzerland I have nothing against the investment of Swiss capital in the UK, I feel that the negative image of Britain as a country with low wages and poor social conditions is something which should be improved and rapidly rather than extolled as a virtue.
It will be recollected that in France, during what I must encapsulate as the Cambuslang-Dijon problem—when Enoch Powell was a Member of the House, he had the habit of expressing a view succinctly by giving it a heading—there was considerable ill-feeling when the workers of the Hoover plant in Dijon apparently lost their jobs because of the lower wages paid in Cambuslang. It was rather more complicated than that, but that was basically the situation.
I do not go along with the argument—which is not true—that the Cambuslang workers were in any way underpaid by British standards, nor will I indulge in any criticism of the Hoover factory. It was said, however, that the Hoover workers in Cambuslang were able to keep their jobs because France had accepted the social chapter and we had not.
I do not wish to quote the advertisement in full; that would not be possible anyway, because it is in German. However, it begins:
Niedriger Landkosten in Grossbritannien.
It suggests that there is every opportunity to invest in Great Britain, because of the lower wages and lesser obligations involved. I have given a copy of the advertisement to the Foreign Office.

6 pm

Mr. George Robertson: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. There is something mean-minded and demeaning, in the eyes of the British people, about their Foreign Office spending public money on an advertisement


campaign in Switzerland—and, as we knov, from Monday's Guardian, another in the Federal Republic of Germany—telling people that this country is a haven for low standards and low pay.
My hon. Friend was present when, in his speech the week before last, the Foreign Secretary dismissed with a flick of the wrist the argument that jobs moved around on the basis of wages and conditions. Why, then, is public money being spent to lower our country's standards and its reputation abroad? My hon. Friend has raised a valid point, which I strongly endorse.

Mr. Dalyell: I have been told to be succinct——

Mr. Seamus Mallon: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Dalyell: I rather hoped that the Foreign Secretary would comment at this stage, so that we could get the point about the advertisement out of the way now. However, I will give way to my hon. Friend.

Mr. Mallon: Let me reinforce the hon. Gentleman's point by alluding to the removal of the Digital plant from Galway to Ayr. The same argument was used in that instance—that, because the Republic of Ireland had ratified the Maastricht treaty, cheap labour was available in Ayr. That, surely, must be bad for the whole concept of competition on a level playing field within the European Community.

Mr. Dalyell: I am very glad that I gave way to my hon. Friend. It so happens that I know a good deal about Digital, which has a huge and modern plant at South Queensferry. I have visited the Ayr plant, and have talked at length to the management there and at South Queensferry; I have also talked to the trade unions involved. I must admit that there is some embarrassment in Scotland about what happened in relation to Galway. Of course we were pleased to have the plant, but genuine sorrow was felt about those who suffered in Galway.

Mr. Hurd: rose——

Mr. Dalyell: Perhaps I should enable the point to be cleared up by giving way to the Foreign Secretary.

Mr. Hurd: I have not yet seen the advertisement to which the hon. Gentleman referred; when I have done so, and have been able to examine the background, I shall write to him.
This argument—based, as it is, purely on statistics inside the European Community—is becoming increasingly unreal. The whole Community is becoming uncompetitive; the whole Community is allowing burdens on employers to increase, to such an extent that, if the process continues, it will soon be a question not of whether firms locate themselves in the Republic of Ireland or in Scotland, but of whether they locate themselves in Europe at all.

Mr. Dalyell: That raises real problems. When I invited the Foreign Secretary to intervene, I did not want to trick him into some long argument. I think that we should leave it at that for the moment, as was my undertaking.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton pointed out, other advertisements have appeared in other newspapers. People who place such advertisements do so at considerable expense to themselves: they must think that they are gaining some advantage, even if the Foreign

Secretary and others do not. Those who advertise normally have their motives. I hope that the Foreign Office will reflect on the issue, and possibly write to my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton, the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) and others who are interested, including myself.

Mr. Marlow: I have here a copy of the Maastricht treaty. Through the decision that it has made today, the House is mutilating that treaty. Given the overriding sovereignty of the House and the significance of the issue, how can the Government—having seen the treaty mutilated—then ratify that mutilated treaty? That is the question that will be before the House and the country; that is the question that my constituents will ask. They will see that we have wrought great changes in the treaty today. It is not the treaty that the Government negotiated: it has been changed.
I have heard all the smart legal points about this being a Bill and a potential Act of Parliament—about Ponsonby rules, and the Government's entitlement to ratify treaties. My constituents, however, will say, "Here is a mutilated treaty." Parliament has decided to reject part of the treaty; how, then, can my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and the Government, in all conscience, proceed to ratify this rotten relic of a rotten treaty?

Mr. Hurd: Only with the permission of the House, which will be expressed in the form of agreement to Third Reading.

Mr. Marlow: If the Bill is to have its Third Reading—I understand that that is dependent on the result of the Danish referendum, unless the Government change their mind about that as well—it will be Third Reading of a mutilated Bill, in connection with a mutilated treaty. Will the Government then be able to ratify the original treaty, given that the Third Reading given by the House will relate to a changed perception of a mutilated treaty? I am assuming that the House proceeds with Third Reading. In an eloquent speech, the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) suggested that the House should reject the treaty at that stage. Even if the Bill secures its Third Reading, however, it will not be the original Bill, and the House will specifically exclude the social protocol in its assessment of the treaty. It will be saying no to the social protocol. How, after that, the Government can then ratify a wounded, mutilated treaty beggars belief.
In response to an intervention, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary pointed out that—along with hon. Friends who share my point of view—I had apparently supported the social protocol in earlier votes. I think my right hon. Friend will agree that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister never wanted the Maastricht treaty. It was not his idea; it was suggested by other countries on the continent. We felt that they were going too far too fast, and tried to slow them down. Eventually, my right hon. Friend was ambushed: he was put in a position where he had to go along with something. Along with my right hon. Friends the Foreign Secretary and the Minister of State, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister was involved in a devastating, excellent, brilliant holding operation—a damage-limitation exercise. The treaty that we have here is not the treaty that other European Governments would have wanted: I congratulate my right hon. Friends on that.
Before my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister went to Maastricht, I gave him overall support, although I did not


support every jot and tittle of the argument that he was taking to Maastricht. I realised that he had been ambushed, and that he wanted to do his best for the United Kingdom. Certainly, no one could have done better than he did 18 months ago—and no one could have done better than my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary. We are all full of praise for his effectiveness in difficult circumstances. When my right hon. Friends the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister came back and it was put before the House—not far removed from the date of a potential election—yet again we supported my right hon. Friend and the Prime Minister for the excellent work they had carried forward.
My right hon. Friend said that I supported the Government on Second Reading. That is not correct. I did not support the Government on Second Reading of the Bill. Many of my colleagues opposed the Government on Second Reading. My right hon. Friend has also made the point that if we vote for a package—for a lengthy amendment with a whole series of details in it—we support every single detail in it. Is my right hon. Friend saying that if in future we disagree with some small aspect of a composite amendment or composite motion we should therefore vote against it?
If that is the point that my right hon. Friend is trying to make, I suggest that he has a word with the Patronage Secretary. The Government are not in a particularly happy position with this legislation. If we have to believe that we are committed to every single thing in every amendment that we vote for in the future, I put it to my right hon. Friend that the job of the Patronage Secretary will be much more difficult than it has been in the past.
What is it all about? What is this social protocol? As my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) has said, it is a totem. The Government say that they have achieved a great success which will benefit the United Kingdom; we shall not be chained and shackled by the social protocol, as other Europeans will be. The Labour party looks at the social protocol and says that it is jammed full of benefits, that it is what we all want and that the people of Britain will be devastated if we cannot have it. But what is the reality? The social protocol is an agreement between 11 countries in Europe, from which we have an exemption. The agreement is that they can go ahead and work out these policies between them but that they should not apply to the United Kingdom. But what is the social protocol all about?
Article 1 concerns the objectives of the social protocol. It states:
The Community and the Member States shall have as their objectives the promotion of employment, improved living and working conditions".
Who can disagree with that? We are all in favour of promoting employment and, in so far as they do not destroy employment, improved living and working conditions. The article also states:
To this end the Community and the Member States shall implement measures which take account of the diverse forms of national practices".
We do things differently here. So do Greece, Belgium, and Luxembourg. We shall be able to continue to do things differently in different parts of the Community. Would

anybody disagree with that? According to the objectives, which set the tone of the whole of the social protocol, we also have to take account of
the need to maintain the competitiveness of the Community economy.
All the burdens that my hon. Friends are concerned about have to be weighed against the effect that they will have on the competitiveness of United Kingdom and European industry and commerce. Is that something that we ought to be concerned about? What can be done which is of benefit to the working people of Europe and to the social cohesion of Europe if at the same time it undermines the competitiveness of the European Community and the countries within it? The objectives of the social protocol are something that Members of Parliament, if they look at them carefully, cannot object to. They represent pure motherhood; they are good. If we can get them, why worry about them?
Article 2 is the meat of the treaty. I shall return to it in a few moments. Articles 3 and 4 are permissive. In other words, if we do not like them we can say that they are nonsense. They deal with trade unions and management getting together, being permitted to do this, that and the other and the Commission becoming involved, if it can give a helping hand. They take a bit longer to say that, but is the substance any different from article 118B of the Single European Act, which says:
The Commission shall endeavour to develop the dialogue between management and labour at European level which could, if the two sides consider it desirable, lead to relations based on agreement."?
That is an economical way of saying what is set out in articles 3 and 4. That is all; there is no great difference. There is just a little more flesh put upon articles 3 and 4.

Mr. Dykes: To reinforce my hon. Friend's point, does he agree that it is interesting to see in the text for the other member states that the word "legal" stands before the word "agreement"? The word "legal" was taken out of the English text.

Mr. Marlow: My hon. Friend is a great linguist, and we all surrender to him on that point. Simple fellow that I am, I have to restrict myself to the text that is written in the English language. I hope that my hon. Friend will therefore bear with me.
6.15 pm
Article 5 has no great significance. It relates to the Commission being able to put its views forward regarding co-operation. Article 6 is a politically correct article. It says:
Each Member State shall ensure that the principle of equal pay for male and female workers for equal work is applied.
That applies anyhow. It is part of the laws of Europe; it is part of the laws of the land. Article 7 has no great additional significance.
So what is the meat of the protocol? It is article 2, which says:
the Community shall support and complement the activities of the Member States in the following fields:
—improvement … of the working environment".
That exists already in article 118A. We all know well that that exists. We are constantly getting legislation—some good, some bad—from the European Community regarding the working environment and also the health and safety of workers.
Secondly, article 2 refers to working conditions. It does not refer to the bettering of working conditions, or to the improvement of working conditions. I presume that it means that if Europe became desperately uncompetitive with the Pacific rim, the participants in the social protocol could sit down together and extend the working week, if they wanted to. That is what working conditions means. The article does not say that we should move in any particular direction. So who is concerned about that?
Article 2 also refers to
the information and consultation of workers
and to
equality between men and women".
We already have that in article 6. The article refers also to
the integration of persons excluded from the labour market".
Everybody, I believe, is in favour of the integration of persons excluded from the labour market. It may be that some enthusiasts in the European Community, with the Commission at the back of it—we are all a bit worried about the Commission—will come forward with ideas that are burdensome.
The article states that the Council may adopt directives. It does not say that it has to adopt directives. However, when the Council adopts those directives, it has to take account of the following sentence:
Such directives shall avoid imposing administrative, financial and legal constraints in a way which would hold back the creation and development of small and medium-sized undertakings.
Anything that can be brought forward on this basis, even though it can be brought forward in certain restricted fields, most of which are already covered by article 118A, has to take account of the satisfactory development and the wealth and prosperity of medium-sized and small undertakings. Is that not something that is satisfactory from my right hon. Friend's point of view, from the Conservative Government's point of view, from the Cabinet's point of view? What are they concerned about?
If we look further down, we see that social security, termination of contracts, representation and collective defence of the interests of workers and employers—that is, trades union legislation—the conditions of employment of third country nationals and financial contributions for the promotion of employment and job creation is all to be done by unanimity. If my right hon. Friend and his colleagues in the Conservative Government do not like them, they can stop them. They have got a veto.
Anything that might be contentious on a party political basis, any of the things that we do not want but that the Labour party might want, the United Kingdom Government, if it were participating in the social protocol, would have the ability to control and prevent from going ahead.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Or anybody else.

Mr. Marlow: Indeed. As the hon. Gentleman says, it would be possible not only for us but for anybody else to do that. If an individual country in Europe wished to do so—if it regarded it as socially beneficial and not burdensome—it could pass its own legislation. But if we were participating in the social protocol, we could veto proposals that we thought would be burdensome for the United Kingdom and for Europe and prevent them from being implemented.
The final part of article 2 of the agreement on social policy states:

The provisions of this Article shall not apply to pay, right of association, the right to strike or the right to impose lock-outs.
A great deal of trade union legislation has been introduced since the Conservative Government came into power in 1979. I voted for it. I agree with it and am of the opinion that it has been of great benefit to this country; I know that Labour Members will disagree with that view. But that legislation, too, is safeguarded, so what are the problems?
I put it to my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary that Europe is changing. It is becoming less competitive. Massive cracks are opening up in the German economy and the Germans' ethos and their attitude to those problems is changing. They know that they have the highest priced work force, the highest on costs and some of the worst absenteeism in Europe—that the great German economic miracle stands balanced between further progress and potential disaster. Attitudes towards working conditions and social legislation in Germany may well be on the threshold of a major change.
Suppose that we do not participate in the social protocol. Ideas come forward. Germany may have second thoughts—from a Conservative point of view—about some of those ideas. The idea may be anathema to Labour Members—it may fill them with horror—but the Germans may not like what is proposed. If we are not there, they will be alone and the proposals will go through. The Germans will feel that they must show solidarity with the others; no one will be there to join them, to agree with them, to share their misgivings. Legislation will be implemented and will affect—in theory—11 member states.
Do we really believe that the other member states will allow it to stop at 11? We know what has happened with other legislation. We had safeguards in the Single European Act. Originally, all these great and important matters were to be decided by unanimity. They were not. A lot of things—including the length of the working week—have been decided by majority voting. If Britain is not involved and if Britain's ideas are not in evidence, we shall have legislation under the social protocol—first for the other 11 member states and then for the United Kingdom—which we shall not have been able to influence. If we participated alongside the Germans—other people with more realistic views about the potentially damaging effects of social legislation on this scale at this stage, with the European economy going down and other economies in the world coming up—we might be able to mould and modify the legislation, not just for the benefit of the United Kingdom but for the benefit of the rest of Europe.

Mr. Austin Mitchell: This is a fascinating new spectacle. For the first time ever, the hon. Gentleman appears to be brimming with enthusiasm for the Maastricht treaty. It is wonderful to watch, but I am not clear that I follow his argument. Is the essence of his position that we should scrap the rest of the treaty and just pass the social chapter?

Mr. Marlow: The essence of my position is the same as the essence of the hon. Gentleman's position: it is that vie should scrap the treaty. What I am saying is that we have had a totally bogus debate about the social chapter so far, as my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East said. The opt-out has been used as a virility symbol—good jungle stuff. We heard from my right hon. Friends what a great victory they had won for Britain in securing an opt-out from the social chapter and we heard from the


Opposition how it would be the end of the world if we did not have the social chapter—our people would be victimised; their working conditions would be appalling; it would be back to Dickens if we did not sign. That is nonsense. If I have one plea to put to hon. Members it is that, before we return to the debate at a later stage, they should read the social protocol, take advice on it and understand it. Let us stop talking slogans and talk reality.
Today, through a combination of views and pressures and attitudes, we have changed the Bill before the House in such a way that I believe that it would be improper for the Government to go ahead with ratification. They know that there is no feeling of warmth, affection or commitment towards the Maastricht treaty in the country at large. They know that people are uneasy about it. As my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East said, let us have some fresh thoughts. Let us put this mangled issue before the people of this country in straightforward terms in a referendum. Let us put the social protocol in front of the people of the country.
We do not have referendums on capital punishment. Who would pass the legislation if we did? But we can have a referendum on the Maastricht treaty. The questions can be simple: "Do you want Maastricht or do you not?"; "Are you prepared to make a decision on Maastricht?"; "Do you want the social protocol or do you not?" Those are simple questions with simple answers.
In this place, we use the powers of the people and if, from time to time in using those powers, we abuse those powers, we will get kicked out. If that happens, Labour will get in and put right what, in its view, we have done wrong. But if, by ratifying the treaty, we dispense with the powers of the people and pass them to institutions over which we have no control, we do something that we do not have the right to do. Those powers are not our powers to dispose of: they are the people's powers. Why not let the people choose?

Mr. David Trimble: I think it was the hon. Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) who said that this was, in many ways, a sad occasion and a sad reflection on our procedures and debates. Other hon. Members have commented on the length of time that has been spent discussing the social protocol and the agreement on social policy and discussing amendments Nos. 27 and 2. We have spent an awful lot of time discussing those issues. Until yesterday, the amendment was billed as or expected to be the crunch event in our discussion of the Bill—the one issue on which the Government would suffer a really important defeat. Today was to be the day on which everything happened. Yet now, at half-past six, the Benches are empty, people have gone away and nothing is happening. The whole thing has become a damp squib. That is indeed a sad reflection on our proceedings.
What has happened has been largely the result of the cumbersome way in which we proceed in ratifying treaties such as this. It would be much better if we had ratification processes similar to those adopted in other member states, where the legislature has to legislate in respect of all the terms of the treaty and where there can be proper debate on it. We do not have that opportunity. Instead, amendments have to be tabled to a Bill that refers to only part of the treaty. Then there is the difficulty of trying to

frame them so that they will have a serious effect. The interest, time and trouble that we have taken over this issue would not have been taken had it not been for the view expressed by the Government and by other hon. Members that amendment No. 27 was important. That is why it became a headline issue. Later, different opinions were expressed about the effect of amendment No. 27 and subsequently the present amendment.
There has been speculation about the differences of opinion and the differences of legal opinion offered within the Government. We have had regrettably brief explanations by the Attorney-General and the Foreign Secretary of the revised opinions. We have not had—this is a serious omission—a full statement of the original opinion on which the Government acted and of the reasons for it.
People outside the House must look on our proceedings with amazement. It would be of benefit to them if they could see the full range of opinion that lay before us or if, even at this late hour, the Government could explain those opinions. That would help people outside to understand how the confusion arose, how conflicting opinions were given and how an amendment that was originally regarded as a killer, both in the House and in comments and briefings outside the House, has ended up a damp squib. It is not the first time that that has happened. Other amendments which were thought to involve major issues ended up as damp squibs. That has given rise to accusations by some hon. Members of a conspiracy between the two Front Benches so that one Front Bench could appear to oppose without frustrating the passage of the Bill. I do not know the truth. I always take the view that if there is a choice between a conspiracy theory and the alternative—I am not sure whether it is parliamentary to refer to a cock-up theory—one should prefer the latter unless there is real evidence to the contrary.
6.30 pm
As to the effect of amendment No. 27 and now amendment No. 2, we had an excellent speech by the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) explaining in detail his views. I found much of what he said persuasive. I shall not go over the same ground in detail, but with the indulgence of the House I want to make some observations on my view of the position.
Two different matters are involved and it is easy for the language to slip between one and the other. There is the protocol on social policy and the agreement on social policy. The agreement is an agreement made by the other 11 members of the Community. It will not extend to the United Kingdom, nor will amendment No. 2 extend it. The protocol is separate from the agreement. The important point about the protocol is that it authorises the other 11 members, who entered into the agreement on social policy, to use the institutions of the Community for the purpose of carrying out the agreement. They need that permission. They cannot operate the agreement on social policy unless permission is granted by the United Kingdom. If the United Kingdom does not grant permission, the agreement on social policy will be frustrated.
The protocol also contains a provision about administrative costs, a point of considerable concern to some Conservative Members. An issue of principle is involved, but the amount is minor and there may be other


ways in which the expenditure can he justified legally and politically. I will leave the question of administrative costs to one side.
As I said, the important point about the protocol is that it authorises the other 11 member states to proceed. I understand why Liberal Members have said that, in substance, the agreement on social policy and the protocol are separate. There is merit in the argument that their subject matter marks them out from the rest of the treaty. If, for the sake of argument, there was a separate treaty, the question would arise whether the Government could give effect to that separate agreement and ratify it without legislation.
That brings in the argument of the Liberal party about section 6 of the European Parliamentary Elections Act 1978. That section is ambiguous and I should not like to give a strong opinion about its effect. The argument of Liberal Members about the effect of section 6 is interesting. I suspect that the hon. Member for Dagenham is right, but it is for the courts to decide. I am prepared to assume that the Government could ratify an agreement on social policy and a protocol on social policy if they were in a separate document. To some extent, that supports the revised legal opinion given to the House by the Attorney-General and would appear to support the view that the adoption of amendment No. 2, which will occur later, would have no effect and that the Government could proceed to ratify.
However, we do not have a separate agreement. The agreement on social policy and the protocol are in the treaty on European union. If Parliament decides that the protocol should not be endorsed, and by doing so clearly expresses the view that the Government should not authorise the other 11 member states to use the institutions of the Community, can or should the Government proceed? That is the kernel of the issue.
Perhaps—I emphasise "perhaps"—on a narrow legal view the Government can proceed to ratify the treaty after the adoption of amendment No. 2, but is it constitutional for them to do so? There is a difference between what is legal and what is constitutional. It stems from the nature of our not clearly defined and evolving constitution. It would be against the spirit of the modern British constitution for the Executive to ignore the formally stated view of Parliament. The arguments of the hon. Member for Dagenham on that point are extremely persuasive.
It would be unconstitutional for the Government to ratify the treaty after Parliament has expressed, as it probably will later, the view that the protocol on social policy should not be endorsed. If the Government proceed on that basis they will be changing constitutional practice. I appeal to them to think carefully before creating an important precedent and departing not only from practice but from what arguably would be constitutionally proper. What has arisen as a result of the Government's decision throws up a serious issue.
One cannot be certain, largely for the reasons given by the hon. Member for Dagenham, but I suspect that there is potential for disparity between United Kingdom law, as it will be if the Bill, as amended, is passed, and the position as stated in the treaty. If there were not potential for disparity, the Bill would never have been drafted as it was. Without being able to identify where the disparity would be between United Kingdom law and the law of the Community, I suspect that there will be disparity.
If there is disparity, the best way to proceed is as the Government originally intended—by including a reference to the protocol in the Bill. By accepting amendment No. 2 and removing the protocol on social policy, the Government are taking the second-best way. They will be all right until the disparity between the United Kingdom law and Community law is apparent, when they will be in serious trouble because they will be out of step with Community law and they will have to come back to Parliament to pass new legislation.
It is not a good way of proceeding, but it is interesting to note that there is a precedent for the Government to behave in precisely that way. I shall mention it briefly because it involves Northern Ireland legislation, in particular the Education Act (Northern Ireland) 1947, passed by the Stormont Parliament. Before it was passed, the Law Officers of the Crown in Northern Ireland, including Lord MacDermott and the father of the former Lord Chief Justice of Northern Ireland, William Lowry, advised the Northern Ireland Government and Her Majesty's Government in London that the legislation was ultra vires the powers of the Northern Ireland Parliament. Their advice was not published at the time; it became available only 30 years later. We now know that they had good and solid reasons for believing the legislation to be unconstitutional. The attitude of Her Majesty's Government was, "Go ahead, legislate, and if you get into trouble later we will repair the damage by passing legislation at Westminster to rescue you."
The Government have adopted a cavalier attitude to the ratification of the treaty. By accepting amendment No. 2, they have been forced into the position in which there is potentially a conflict between United Kingdom law and Community law. However, they accept that danger to get through today's crisis—to avoid the issue today. They will wait until the crisis comes back tomorrow, next month, next year or whenever and then come back. It may not be them: it may be someone else because people may have been reshuffled or moved on since then. That is a bad way to proceed. As the hon. Member for Southend, East said, what is happening today is a sad reflection on the House.
I said at the outset that I hope the Government will have the opportunity to put into the public domain the original legal advice that they received from the lawyers in the Foreign Office and a detailed statement, not the short, almost contemptuous statements that we have had from the Foreign Secretary and the Attorney-General. It occurs to me that that material, advice and information will probably be in the public domain soon, despite the Government.
The hon. Member for Dagenham wondered whether it would be possible to go to the United Kingdom court to seek a judicial review of an Act of Parliament. He is right to wonder because such action would create other precedents. It would be an interesting way to proceed. Of course, it is not necessary to do that. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that the question of locus standi is not a serious problem. It will be easy for people to seek a declaration that, in the light of the European Communities (Amendment) Bill as amended today, it will be unlawful or improper for the Government to proceed to ratify the treaty on European union. If people proceed to seek a declaration on that basis, one will move for discovery. On discovery, I am sure that a whole range of interesting material will come out of the Foreign Office and elsewhere.


Perhaps it is appropriate to get the shredders going before too much more time has elapsed on this issue—they may already be at work. An interesting issue will arise.
The serious point underlying all this is that the Government will proceed in the way in which they said they want to—they will accept amendment No. 2 and thus have all of Parliament, in a deliberate and formal Act, say that it does not approve of the protocol on social policy and, consequently, does not think that Her Majesty's Government should authorise the other 11 member states to proceed to use the institutions of the Community for the purposes of the protocol. If they say that they will ignore the formal and unanimous statement of the House and rely on the strict letter of the law as they see it, it will be a bad day for the House and the British constitution. There are those who say that the whole operation of enacting the Bill will be a bad day for the British constitution.

Mr. Maclennan: Earlier, the hon. Members for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) and for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) spoke with feeling and great conviction about the significance of the Bill and amendment No. 2. They are right to recognise, in a way that the Government have never allowed, that we are engaged in a significant matter. It is not about elegance in parliamentary drafting or tidiness: it is about what will appear on the face of an Act of Parliament and the consequences of that. Neither the Foreign Secretary nor the Attorney-General has been candid about that matter at any stage of the proceedings on this Bill.
It is a matter of great regret that, in consideration of amendment No. 27 and in today's debate, responsible Ministers have paid such cursory attention to the legal effects of what we are seeking to do and what, apparently, as a result of the volte face by the Government, we shall do without dissension as a result of their acceptance of amendment No. 2. The hon. Member for Southend, East, whom I have known for a long time in the House, must not exaggerate the pressures that were put on him and other Conservative Members to kowtow to the Government's interpretation. That pressure does not stem from a matter of elegance of drafting because some course of action is preferable but not necessary—the Government took the view that what we are doing today is not simply preferable but necessary to achieve their purpose of the proper ratification of not only the Maastricht treaty but the social protocol.
6.45 pm
Why did the Government take that view, which they appear to be prepared to jettison today? Why is there that great inconsistency? Throughout the Maastricht process, the Government have talked with two voices. On the one hand, they have tried to convey the impression to the other member countries of the European Community that we were going along step by step with the development of the European union. On the other hand, they preferred not to emphasise that step-by-step approach to the British public but to trumpet a nationalistic rejection of the development of the European union. As evidence of that, they have produced the elements of the agreement, especially the provisions relating to the social chapter, that could be held up as evidence of Britain going it alone.
The operation was always a two-faced one. It backfired badly on the Government not only today when the Foreign Secretary was faced with an intervention from the

hon. Member for East Lindsey (Sir P. Tapsell) that put him on the spot and that he was unable to answer. If the matter was so massively important, as it had been declared earlier, why did the Foreign Secretary shrug it off today? The Foreign Secretary shrugged off not only that difficulty but a much more serious difficulty for the Government that flowed from the reaction of other member countries of the Community to what had been done in Maastricht. If the Government had been straightforward about the matter instead of covering up what was going on, it is probable that the Danes, in their referendum, would have come to a different decision. They would have felt not that Britain had pulled a fast one on them and got some sort of separate advantage but that it was proper and appropriate to move in step with the other 11 member countries of the Community.
That has not been done without cost to the United Kingdom—it has certainly not been done without cost to the European Community. It has led to this Parliament having to debate the matter for months in ways that have forced other items off the agenda and that have led to the bafflement of the wider public because the Government have been so lacking in candour about what they are doing.

Mr. Spearing: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that there is another possible explanation for the lack of candour? I am not sure whether it also applies to his party. I do not believe so, but it certainly applies to the Government. Is it not possible that if the Government had been candid about the nature of the treaty and of the European union for which the hon. Gentleman is an enthusiast and for which he speaks, there would have been such a strong reaction inside the Conservative party and an even stronger reaction in the country that people would have said, "No. Up with this we will not put."?
The same may well have happened in Denmark. It may happen again. It is an open secret that the Government of Denmark are trying to get something through, just as the British Government are trying to do. They knew that if they were candid, they probably would not do it.

Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. Before the hon. Gentleman continues, may I point out that this is not a Second or Third Reading debate. We are debating amendments. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will recall that.

Mr. Maclennan: If you are referring to my remarks, Madam Deputy Speaker, of course I will endeavour to recall that. I thought that I was closely following the impact of the amendment. The intervention may have widened the issue way beyond what I had in mind. For that reason, perhaps I shall not follow what the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) said. [Laughter.] If the hon. Gentleman provokes me, I will answer.
I do not believe that the British community would have rejected the treaty simply because the hon. Gentleman's view of what had been done had been trumpeted. When the Bill was first voted upon, the House accepted it overwhelmingly. I believe that the country would have accepted it overwhelmingly if the Government had been much more straightforward about what they were doing.
We must consider the effect of what the Government have accepted in amendment No. 2. It appears to me that at best they have thrown considerable doubt on the effectiveness of our ratification of the social protocol. I


doubt whether the amendment will result in the defeat of the ratification process of the treaty, for, as I read it, the treaty and the protocol are related but distinct legal instruments.
Furthermore, it is right to recall that the Maastricht treaty provides that it must be ratified by the high contracting parties
in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements.
I put it to the House that the respective constitutional requirements for both the treaty and the social protocol are that they be approved by the House. That is because of the provisions of section 6 of the European Assembly Elections Act 1978.
When I put that point to the Foreign Secretary, he—apparently relying on something that had been quickly whispered in his left ear by the Attorney-General—said that it was taken care of by clause 1(2) of the Bill. I am bound to say that it is not clear from any fair-minded and objective reading of clause 1(2) that that is so. The clause refers to the treaty. It certainly does not refer to the protocol. It may be argued that the treaty includes the protocol. But that argument will not be so easy to sustain following the passing of amendment No. 2 this afternoon.
Clause 1(1) will now explicitly exclude the protocol and make it clear that within the four corners of the legislation a distinction is drawn between the treaty and the protocol. Of course, that argument only goes to reinforce the view that may fairly be arrived at from the language of the protocol, which provides that it and the agreement on social policy are
without prejudice to the provisions of this Treaty".
It appears to me that the protocol regards the treaty as separate and that the treaty and the protocol are two international instruments separately signed, separately debated and separately agreed. They are related in subject matter, but they are distinct international agreements. They are both subject to our constitutional requirements.
I put it no stronger than this. The Government have created great uncertainty about whether we are in a position to ratify the social protocol. It is well known that my right hon. and hon. Friends and I do not wish to see the social protocol ratified. We do not wish to be out of step with the legislative measures in force in the European Community for the protection of the interest of our people, however that may be defined.
I wholly accept the view expressed by the hon. Member for Northampton, North in his impassioned speech that, when such matters are discussed in Europe, it is exceedingly important that the British Government are represented. The matter affects our vital national interests. The exclusion of our voice from the debate can, by no stretch of the imagination, be regarded as in the interests of Britain.
How will the matter be resolved? The hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) and several others have speculated that perhaps the matter will come before our domestic courts fairly soon and said that it should. I do not know precisely what they have in mind. I heard what the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) said about seeking a declaration. It may be a little more difficult than has been anticipated to have the matter considered by our domestic courts.
Although I know that, proceeding by originating summonses, the courts may feel that it is appropriate not to test too carefully the question of locus standi and to take

a broad view, I should have thought that it would be necessary to show that one had some interest in the courts' finding before such a test could be made. I do not doubt that the matter could come before the European Court if any step were taken by the other 11 members of the Community on the basis of the social agreement which was seen by any citizen of Britain to be adverse to our country's interest and to our citizens' individual interests.
At the European Court we would have an undoubted right to challenge the effectiveness of what was being done and to test whether we had properly ratified. Indeed, we could test whether the other 11 members of the Community could enact anything under the provisions of an agreement which had not been properly ratified by one of the member states.
It may be called into question whether the social protocol falls as a result of the decision taken by the House of Commons today. It is a matter of speculation whether such doubt can exist in the minds of senior legal counsel in this country. It undoubtedly was in the mind of the Foreign Office legal adviser, Mr. Frank Berman, when he gave the advice on which the Government originally relied before the Attorney-General came up with his convenient alternative when he discovered that the Government did not have a majority on the matter.
The way in which the Government have proceeded is unsatisfactory. It is not only politically damaging to Britain's interests but creates continuing legal uncertainty within the European Community. In our view, the only proper way to resolve the matter is to take it back to an intergovernmental meeting as soon as possible and for the Government to say that they are prepared to withdraw from the position which they have taken hitherto of opposition to the social agreement, which has commended itself to all the other 11 member countries of the Community. I hope that that is the action that they will take, but it remains to be seen, because we have heard very little from the Government today on what they intend to do as a result of this. They tried to pretend that it was simply a matter of drafting elegance, but this is a threadbare argument that carries no conviction at all.

Mr. George Stevenson: The statement of surrender that we heard from the Foreign Secretary regarding the Government's intention on amendment No. 2 poses fundamental issues for the House, many of which have been elaborated by other right hon. and hon. Members, and it is not my intention to repeat them. Suffice it to say that the contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) about the Government's attitude was absolutely right and unanswerable.
The dramatic change that has come about as a result of the Government's acceptance of amendment No. 2, from the position where the social chapter opt-out was absolutely crucial to the position where it had no importance, cannot by any stretch of the imagination warrant the term "credible". Why have we seen this humiliating climb-down? I suspect that the Government decided that a climb-down would be marginally less humiliating for them than an outright defeat. In other words, out of a sense of panic they were looking for a bolthole in which they could ensure their survival.
7 pm
I want to make a point to those who argue that there are really no legal problems to worry about as a result of acceptance of amendment No. 2. The Attorney-General has advised us that there are no legal problems, but removing the opt-out leaves many questions. If we are to remove the opt-out to the social chapter, as is the case, who will decide what is the position with regard to that social chapter and to social policy within the United Kingdom? Someone will have to decide. The Government seem unable or unwilling to take a positive or definitive view on this, so who will decide? It will be the courts, either in this country, or, more likely, the European Court.
So because the Government are apparently prepared to ignore what we are sure will be the clear wish of the House and of Parliament, in relation to the social protocol opt-out and in an attempt to save some shred of their tattered credibility, they seem content to take the view that they can hide behind the skirts of the courts, which will sort things out if the Government are not prepared to—hardly an example of decisive government or of being at the heart of Europe. However, this appears to be the attitude that the Government are prepared to take and it is a direct result of the inept handling of the whole situation by the Government, together with their apparent willingness to deny what we are sure will be the clear authority and decision of the House.
The Government could take a positive attitude. They could say that since the House of Commons has made its intentions known, they will reverse their attitude and their policy and accept the full-blown social chapter and social policy of the European Community. There is no indication whatever from the Government Front Bench that they intend to do that. What we face here is another historic miscalculation by the Government.
There is a second important miscalculation that I wish to highlight. The Prime Minister, no less, has argued consistently in the House and elsewhere that the social chapter opt-out is vital—not important, vital—for United Kingdom interests and economic competitiveness. But I believe that as a result of what has happened the European Community will scrutinise the Government's position carefully. The other members of the European Community may be prepared grudgingly to acquiesce in a short-term opt-out so that they can have a political deal on Maastricht and so that they can stitch up an agreement. I suggest, however, that what the European Community will not tolerate is the House removing the opt-out of the social chapter and the United Kingdom continuing to act as if the opt-out was still there. Member countries will not accept that the United Kingdom can have it both ways.
There may be challenges in the courts of this country and perhaps in the European Court, but I am pretty sure that the other member states will not tolerate a situation where the United Kingdom Government, for the sake of sheer expediency, see fit to take these measures in an attempt to have their cake and eat it, and try to operate as though the social policies in the other member states will go ahead but the social policy in this country will not, even though the House of Commons has removed the opt-out to the social chapter.
The Government may continue to seek this because they believe that it gives us a competitive advantage if what we have so often heard described as the burdens of the social protocol are not imposed on British business and industry. Many of us simply do not accept that, but it has

been the basis of the Government's argument. The opt-out will have no support in Parliament and it will simply not be accepted as a credible position in the Community. I can safely predict that it will not be tolerated.
I argue strongly that those who seek to support the Maastricht Bill on Third Reading, given the situation that we are now facing and given the fundamental issues raised in the debate this afternoon, will do European progress and integration no service whatever. If the Maastricht Bill is accepted on Third Reading, there will, because of actions taken as a result of the present position, be severe delay and it could even result in the ultimate destruction of the process begun at Maastricht.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 2

ECONOMIC AND MONETARY UNION

Mr. Andrew Smith: I beg to move amendment No. 46, in page 2, line 1, after 'Article 2', insert 'of the Treaty establishing the European Community'.

Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): With this it will be convenient to discuss also the following amendments: No. 47, in clause 3, page 2, line 4, leave out from first 'of' to 'and' in line 5 and insert
'the Treaty establishing the European Community'.
No. 48, in clause 4, page 2, line 10, leave out from second 'of' to 'information' in line 11 and insert
`the Treaty establishing the European Community'.

Mr. Smith: The purpose of the amendments is simply to bring the language into conformity with the references to the treaty made elsewhere in the Bill.
I am moving the amendments because they amend the successful amendments to the Bill which the Labour party has already had accepted. By the end of our deliberations on the Bill we will have rewritten around two thirds of it, a considerable achievement for the Opposition.

Mr. Spearing: Had I known two hours ago that I would be speaking on what appear to be, and probably are, procedural amendments, I would have been surprised. As my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith) knows, the amendments relate, indirectly, to a number of questions which I hope the Financial Secretary will be able to answer. It is a pity that the Attorney-General has fled the Chamber because the issues are much more in his line than that of anybody else.
As my hon. Friend said, amendments Nos. 46, 47 and 48 respectively refer to clause 2, which deals with the change from stage 2 to stage 3 of economic monetary union; clause 3, which relates to a report by the Bank of England; and clause 4, which deals with information for the Commission.
When one looks at clause 2 it is obvious that, without the insertion
of the Treaty establishing the European Community
an anomaly would be created because it might be thought that article 2, as mentioned in the clause, referred to the article of the treaty on European union, to which the whole Bill is consequential.
I noted that the amendments tabled to clauses 3 and 4 did not follow, so I made some inquiries as to why the articles referred to in clauses 3 and 4 did not appear to match up with the text of the treaties that we have before us. Those inquiries produced, at first sight, a simple answer


—that the treaty establishing the European Communities will be the continuing title of the consolidated treaty that will result from the marriage of the existing treaty establishing the communities, popularly known as "Rome", with the treaty establishing a European union, popularly known as "Maastricht". This is a mystery because the Government were requested on many occasions, both in writing before the presentation of the Bill and in Committee, to print and distribute the consolidated treaty as it is designed to emerge. In other words, we have before us two treaties which will be pushed into one. The Government have persistently and consistently declined to meet that request. A number of hon. Members were surprised by this because, since the Government are committed to public informal ion, we wanted to see the treaties as they will be once the Act is passed and assuming that those treaties are ratified. Only an ingenious, private entrepreneur produced such a volume. It has not been referred to in the course of the debate because, quite rightly, we have been using the HMSO version of both treaties.
A question arises as to what will happen given ratification and the production of the third or fourth treaty—whatever number one would like to give it—which has no name but is now being named precisely by the amendments. I cannot understand why that specific title has been chosen. At the present time the treaty establishing the European Economic Communities is that signed originally at Rome—the present version is Cm 455—and it will be amended. I assumed that the treaty, as amended, would have some other title—perhaps the "Treaty on European Union and the Communities"—but no, it appears that on advice, which I have no doubt my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, East and other hon. Friends have taken, it will be called, quite simply, in the words of the amendment,
the Treaty establishing the European Community".
How can that be when, for months, we have been discussing a treaty on European union? It is bad that a Foreign Office Minister is not on the Front Bench, or somewhere handy, for this penultimate debate of the important Report stage.
The Foreign Secretary has said time and time again that two great edifices are involved; that we are beefing up the European Communities—that is the core of the Bill—and we will have some intergovernmental pillars, that is, the union. The Foreign Secretary—I am sorry he is not here—has been peddling this week after week, month after month. Some of us have said that, in practice, we will end up with the same, original edifice. We have also said, further, that the Community will enlarge into something much bigger than we were used to in the old Common Market and the old Community; it will be a union that takes on most of the characteristics of a nation. "Oh no", the Government said, "It will not be like that at all." But we have two parts to the treaty: we have titles II, III and IV which under articles G, H and I, will clearly create a beefed-up "Rome" and, indeed, establish the European Communities. But those communities are within and part of what will be the intergovernmental union. The articles of the treaty which relate to that—I refer to the treaty on the union—are titles I, V, VI and VII. They comprise all the articles A to F, inclusive, and J,K,L,M,N,O,P,I),R and S.
As a result of the drafting of the treaty signed at Maastricht it is clear that we will have a single, consolidated treaty. The amendments, however, tabled as a result of good advice, will result in the treaty being called
the Treaty establishing the European Community".
Clearly, as those of us who have been here in the past weeks know, that is not a correct title. It is a treaty that will establish European union within which there will be an inner core of the European Community—and that comes straight out of the mouth of the Foreign Secretary and his Foreign Office colleagues, who are not here. How can it properly have such a title when it will establish that union? As some of my hon. Friends and I have already said, that union will be a much bigger and more important entity than the communities inside it.
The Minister on duty in the Chamber is from the Treasury. What is the House coming to when we have an important treaty before us and the Foreign Office is not represented? What are the Secretary of State for Health, the Financial Secretary and two other members of the Cabinet doing here, trying to answer for the Foreign Secretary and his Minister of State? Those right hon. Gentlemen are in enough trouble already, having had to climb down from their respective positions.
What will be the name of the final treaty? Will it take the title of the Bill or that offered in the amendments? If it takes its title from the amendments, it will be inaccurate; if not, will the Government table further amendments in another place to give the accurate name of the treaty? Why was it that the Government would not print the consolidated treaty so that it could be laid before the public and the House before we embarked upon our deliberations on the Bill? Were the Government being open with the public and the House? Are they being open with the House by tabling such amendments, or rather suggesting to my hon. Friends that they should regularise their own amendments?
The Financial Secretary is now, I believe, able to shed some light on this. I appreciate his difficult position, but I am also aware that the Government have mishandled this matter, because in this penultimate debate on the Bill no member of the Foreign Office or the Cabinet is present who could answer what I believe to be some important questions.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Stephen Dorrell): I am happy to accept the amendment. It was odd to hear the hon. Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith) claim credit for more than half—indeed, he mentioned two thirds—of the words in the Bill, as amended, as having been written by the Opposition. The Government are normally, in the legislative process, under criticism for prolixity. It is a happy state of affairs when I can return the charge to the Opposition Benches. We regard the amendments as an improvement to the Bill and I am happy to accept them.
I admire the extent to which the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) can build a conspiracy into the title that is put over the treaty. The answer to his question is straightforward and it is made clear by the description of the purposes of the different titles contained in the table of contents in the published version of the Bill. That explains that titles II, III and IV are, as their name implies, titles which amend the treaties that established the European Communities, while titles I, V, VI and, to a large measure, VII, are a treaty that was signed at Maastricht


—with force in its own right under international law—and do not aspire to amend the treaties that established the European Community.
Two separate things were done at Maastricht, one of which involves the amendment of the treaties establishing the Communities, the other of which involves the establishment of the pillars on which the Minister of State rightly placed considerable stress during the passage of the Bill.

Mr. Spearing: I am grateful for the Minister's description and perhaps I was a little hard, although hopefully not conspiratorial. Matters are totally different for those who know the answers from the start compared with those who are discovering them only as we go along.
Is he suggesting that we shall have two treaties? Will there be the central titles, II, III and IV, to which he referred as the treaty creating the Economic Communities, as amended by the amendments made at Maastricht, as one treaty, plus another called the treaty on European union comprised of titles I, V, VI and VII and the other lettered articles to which I referred? That might make some sense, although it would mean two volumes of treaties rather than one. If there is one, it cannot be given two titles, particularly as the central part is sandwiched between two thick slices of bread on the outside.

Mr. Dorrell: This is a semantic argument which is not getting the House far. We have signed a succession of treaties, the effect of part of one of which—that is, the treaty of Maastricht—is to amend the terms of earlier treaties signed at Rome and other places. The effect is made clear by the textual development contained in the terms of the relevant treaties as they were signed.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 3

ANNUAL REPORT BY BANK OF ENGLAND.

Amendment made: No. 47, in page 2, line 4, leave out from first 'of to 'and' in line 5 insert
'the Treaty establishing the European Community'.—[Mr. Andrew Smith.]

Mr. Dorrell: I beg to move amendment No. 44, in page 2, line 8, leave out 'the Commons' and insert 'each'.

Madam Deputy Speaker: I suggest that it would be convenient for the House to discuss at the same time Government amendment No. 45.

Mr. Dorrell: The effect of amendment No. 44 is to amend clause 3, which was accepted by the Government in Committee. Clause 3, the House will remember, was originally new clause I in Committee. It provides an opportunity for the House to consider and vote on the report submitted by the Governor of the Bank of England on the work of the European system of central banks.
The clause as drafted provides that that vote shall take place only in this House. It is conventional that when votes are called for on free-standing resolutions in one House, the same opportunity is provided to the other House. The only normal exception to that process arises in the context of supply procedures. The new clause does not relate to supply procedures and the Government think it would be

appropriate to afford a similar opportunity to another place to have a vote on the subject contained in clause 3 of the Bill, as amended.

Mr. George Robertson: These amendments are not as simple and uncontroversial as the otherwise plausible Financial Secretary would have the House believe, and I will explain why. Earlier today, the Government accepted amendment No. 2, and Ministers have been perambulating around television studios telling the world that it did not matter, that what happened was of no great consequence and that the protocol should not have been there in the first place.
It is as though the Foreign Secretary was holding a grenade in his hand and this afternoon it went off. He wiggles his hand about saying, "I did not need that hand, anyway." The Government are trying by their generosity to tell the British people that what happened was of no real consequence, and in the amendments now before the House they are at it again.
Amendment No. 44 would, says the Financial Secretary, simply give the other House the right to debate the report of the Governor of the Bank of England and an opportunity, equal to that of this House, to vote on that report. Clause 3 is historic. This is the first time in British history that the Governor of the Bank of England will be required to report to this House. Not only is that a first, but the Government have accepted a provision that will oblige Parliament to have a vote on the Governor's report. Clearly, it is not an insignificant feature.
As the Financial Secretary points out, the normal exception to the convention in this House on measures that are considered by one House and not by the other is in relation to finance. He uses the word "supply," but we know that that relates to finance, and there is a good and proper tradition for that. We are talking of a report by the Governor of the Bank of England to Parliament on questions of finance and the discharge of his responsibilities in relation to economic and monetary union and the European central bank.

Mr. Dorrell: The hon. Gentleman is making an important mistake. The principles of supply would remain unaffected by the treaty. The responsibilities of the Governor concern monetary policy, and if we move to stage 3 of the treaty, any vote on monetary policy will be governed by the standard procedures of the House and will not be part of supply.

Mr. Robertson: The last time I was accused of making an important mistake was when the Minister of State told me that my amendment, then called amendment No. 27, would wreck the Maastricht treaty. So I treat the authoritative words of a Treasury Minister with a degree of scepticism.
Although the Minister talks of the precise details of the convention, the fact remains that we are concerned with monetary policy and the discharge of the responsibilities of the Governor of the Bank of England in relation to the European system of central banks. So it should remain, as a matter of principle, in the province of the House of Commons and not necessarily the House of Lords. Accordingly, I recommend my hon. Friends to oppose amendment No. 44.
Amendment No. 45 is linked with that amendment and, as a Government amendment, will be put to a vote. It, too, looks simple, equating the responsibilities of the House of


Commons and the House of Lords. When we get to the vote arising out of what was known as new clause 74, it will be the final cliffhanger vote of the whole ratification procedure which, perhaps unfortunately, I described as a ticking bomb. My description may have been unfortunate, not because it will explode in the Government's face but because such explosive similes are not in the best taste, especially in recent times.
We are being told that that process will prevent a Lords amendment from returning to the House. Hon. Members have been told, sotto voce through the usual channels, "It is simply George seeing shadows." It is said that I, of all people, want to detain the House further to consider Lords amendments before ratification. If there is any one person in the House of Commons who does not intend to detain the House for any longer than necessary on the European Communities (Amendment) Bill, it is me. It is absurd to suggest otherwise.
7.30 pm
The Government's intentions are clear. The Bill now provides for a vote in the House of Commons that will take place—as the Foreign Secretary said—between Royal Assent on the ratification Bill and the actual ratification and notification of ratification. That is simple and straightforward—this afternoon the Foreign Secretary laid it on the line for Conservative rebels and told them what they would be voting for. I have made it clear in a previous debate that the amendment—to whichever motion the Government table—will explicitly refuse the Government the right to send the articles of ratification to Rome until they have signed the social chapter.
If the Tory rebels care to believe the Chancellor of the Exchequer—who said in the Budget debate that we would never sign the social chapter—they can vote with us in the knowledge that the amendment will wreck the Maastricht treaty. It will stop it in its tracks, not just for this country but for the whole of Europe. I hold the contrary view and believe that the Government would not dream of taking the country into the wilderness which that would represent by destroying the treaty for everyone. However, that will be the issue on that vote.
Now, the Government are saying that the House of Lords will have an equal right to vote. Is the Minister of State to be allowed to reply to the debate? The Government do not usually allow the Minister of State to open or reply to debates any longer—he is to resign the moment that our proceedings are over. However, if he is allowed to reply, I should like him to answer a simple question for the House: what happens if the House of Commons votes for our amendment and the House of Lords does not? What will happen at the end of the ratification process? What would the constitutional position be? There is nothing in the constitution of the United Kingdom or in "Erskine May" to deal with such a situation. We shall be moving from a relatively straightforward position—with the House able to make a decision on whether to ratify a treaty that does not include the social chapter—to one that places the Government in the dilemma of having to sign the social chapter or walk away from the treaty. Therefore, I recommend that, when we come to it, my hon. Friends should vote against amendment No. 45.

Sir Teddy Taylor: Is not there a double lock in that both Houses have to approve the measure? I am sure that it will not be a problem—it is a double lock or additional safeguard.

Mr. Robertson: The hon. Member for Southend, East (Sir. T. Taylor) usually sees more conspiracies and ghosts than even I do. However, my considered view is that. the Government are trying to avoid the House of Commons having to come to a conclusive decision on the issue. Anyone who has watched the Government meandering around the labyrinth that my right hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) described so eloquently earlier will come to the same conclusion as I have, rather than any other more generous conclusion. I believe that, when we reach it, the House should vote against amendment No. 45.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 305, Noes 256.

Division No. 257]
[7.33 pm


AYES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Congdon, David


Aitken, Jonathan
Conway, Derek


Alexander, Richard
Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)


Alton, David
Cope, Rt Hon Sir John


Amess, David
Cormack, Patrick


Ancram, Michael
Couchman, James


Arbuthnot, James
Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)


Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)
Dafis, Cynog


Ashby, David
Davies, Quentin (Stamford)


Aspinwall, Jack
Davis, David (Boothferry)


Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)
Day, Stephen


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Deva, Nirj Joseph


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North) Devlin, Tim


Baldry, Tony
Dickens, Geoffrey


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Dicks, Terry


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Dorrell, Stephen
 
Bates, Michael
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Batiste, Spencer
Dover, Den


Beith, Rt Hon A. J.
Duncan, Alan


Bellingham, Henry
Duncan-Smith, Iain


Beresford, Sir Paul
Dunn, Bob


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Durant, Sir Anthony


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Dykes, Hugh


Body, Sir Richard
Eggar, Tim


Booth, Hartley
Elletson, Harold


Boswell, Tim
Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter



Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)


Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia
Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)


Bowden, Andrew
Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)


Bowis, John
Evans, Roger (Monmouth)


Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes
Evennett, David


Brandreth, Gyles
Faber, David


Brazier, Julian
Fabricant, Michael


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas


Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)
Fenner, Dame Peggy


Browning, Mrs. Angela
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Fishburn, Dudley


Budgen, Nicholas
Forman, Nigel


Burns, Simon
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Burt, Alistair
Forth, Eric


Butler, Peter
Foster, Don (Bath)


Butterfill, John
Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)


Carlisle, John (Luton North)
Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Freeman, Roger


Carrington, Matthew
French, Douglas


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Fry, Peter


Chapman, Sydney
Gale, Roger


Churchill, Mr
Gallie, Phil


Clappison, James
Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Garnier, Edward


Coe, Sebastian
Gillan, Cheryl






Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair
Malone, Gerald


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Mans, Keith


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Marland, Paul


Gorst, John
Marlow, Tony


Grant, Sir Anthony (Cambs SW)
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)



Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Martin, David (Portsmouth S) 

Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)
Mates, Michael


Grylls, Sir Michael
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn
Merchant, Piers


Hague, William
Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)


Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie (Epsom)
Milligan, Stephen



Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Mills, Iain


Hampson, Dr Keith
Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)


Hannam, Sir John
Monro, Sir Hector


Hargreaves, Andrew
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Harris, David
Moss, Malcolm


Haselhurst, Alan
Nelson, Anthony


Hawkins, Nick
Neubert, Sir Michael


Hayes, Jerry
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Heald, Oliver
Nicholls, Patrick


Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)


Hendry, Charles
Norris, Steve


Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley


Hicks, Robert
Oppenheim, Phillip


Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.
Ottaway, Richard


Hill, James (Southampton Test)
Page, Richard


Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)
Paice, James


Horam, John
Patnick, Irvine


Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Pawsey, James


Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)
Pickles, Eric


Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)
Porter, Barry (Wirral S)


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Porter, David (Waveney)

 Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)
Powell, William (Corby)


Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)
Rathbone, Tim


Hunter, Andrew
Redwood, John


Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Renton, Rt Hon Tim


Jack, Michael
Richards, Rod


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Riddick, Graham


Johnston, Sir Russell
Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Robathan, Andrew


Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)
Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)


Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Robinson, Mark (Somerton)


Kennedy, Charles (Ross, C&S)
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


Key, Robert
Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)


Kilfedder, Sir James
Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela


King, Rt Hon Tom
Ryder, Rt Hon Richard


Kirkhope, Timothy
Sackville, Tom


Knapman, Roger
Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim


Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)
Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas


Knight, Greg (Derby N)
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)
Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian


Knox, David
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Kynoch, George (Kincardine)
Shersby, Michael


Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Sims, Roger


Lamont, Rt Hon Norman
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Lang, Rt Hon Ian
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Leigh, Edward
Soames, Nicholas


Lennox-Boyd, Mark
Speed, Sir Keith


Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)
Spencer, Sir Derek


Lidington, David
Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)


Lightbown, David
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Spink, Dr Robert


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Spring, Richard


Llwyd, Elfyn
Sproat, Iain


Lord, Michael
Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)


Luff, Peter
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Steel, Rt Hon Sir David


Lynne, Ms Liz
Steen, Anthony


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Stephen, Michael


MacKay, Andrew
Stern, Michael


Maclean, David
Stewart, Allan


McLoughlin, Patrick
Streeter, Gary


Madel, David
Sumberg, David


Maitland, Lady Olga
Sweeney, Walter


Major, Rt Hon John
Sykes, John





Taylor, Ian (Esher)
Ward, John


Taylor, John M. (Solihull)
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Taylor, Matthew (Truro)
Waterson, Nigel


Temple-Morris, Peter
Watts, John


Thomason, Roy
Wells, Bowen


Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)
Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John


Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)
Whitney, Ray


Thornton, Sir Malcolm
Widdecombe, Ann


Thurnham, Peter
Wiggin, Sir Jerry


Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)
Wigley, Dafydd


Tracey, Richard
Willetts, David


Tredinnick, David
Wilshire, David 

Trend, Michael
Wolfson, Mark


Trotter, Neville
Wood, Timothy


Twinn, Dr Ian
Yeo, Tim


Tyler, Paul
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Viggers, Peter



Waldegrave, Rt Hon William
Tellers for the Ayes:


Walden, George
Mr. Robert G. Hughes and


Wallace, James
Mr. Andrew Mitchell 


Waller, Gary





NOES



Abbott, Ms Diane
Cryer, Bob


Adams, Mrs Irene
Cummings, John


Ainger, Nick
Cunliffe, Lawrence


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)


Allen, Graham
Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Darling, Alistair


Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)
Davidson, Ian


Armstrong, Hilary
Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)


Ashton, Joe
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Austin-Walker, John
Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'I)


Barnes, Harry
Denham, John


Barron, Kevin
Dewar, Donald


Battle, John
Dixon, Don


Bayley, Hugh
Dobson, Frank


Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret
Donohoe, Brian H.


Bell, Stuart
Dowd, Jim


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Dunnachie, Jimmy


Bennett, Andrew F.
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth


Benton, Joe
Eagle, Ms Angela


Bermingham, Gerald
Eastham, Ken


Berry, Dr. Roger
Enright, Derek


Betts, Clive
Etherington, Bill


Blair, Tony
Ewing, Mrs Margaret


Blunkett, David
Fatchett, Derek


Boateng, Paul
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)


Boyce, Jimmy
Fisher, Mark


Boyes, Roland
Flynn, Paul


Bradley, Keith
Foster, Rt Hon Derek


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Foulkes, George


Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)
Fraser, John


Brown, N. (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)
Fyfe, Maria


Burden, Richard
Galbraith, Sam


Byers, Stephen
Galloway, George


Callaghan, Jim
Gapes, Mike


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Garrett, John


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
George, Bruce


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Gerrard, Neil


Canavan, Dennis
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John


Cann, Jamie
Godman, Dr Norman A.


Chisholm, Malcolm
Godsiff, Roger


Clapham, Michael
Golding, Mrs Llin


Clark, Dr David (South Shields)
Graham, Thomas


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Clelland, David
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Grocott, Bruce


Coffey, Ann
Gunnell, John


Cohen, Harry
Hain, Peter


Connarty, Michael
Hall, Mike


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Hanson, David


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Hardy, Peter


Corbett, Robin
Harman, Ms Harriet


Corbyn, Jeremy
Henderson, Doug


Corston, Ms Jean
Heppell, John


Cousins, Jim
Hill, Keith (Streatham)


Cox, Tom
Hinchliffe, David






Hoey, Kate
Olner, William


Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)
O'Neill, Martin


Home Robertson, John
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Hood, Jimmy
Parry, Robert


Hoon, Geoffrey
Pendry, Tom


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Pickthall, Colin


Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)
Pike, Peter L.


Hoyle, Doug
Pope, Greg


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Hughes, Roy (Newport E)
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)


Hume, John
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Hutton, John
Prescott, John


Illsley, Eric
Primarolo, Dawn


Ingram, Adam
Purchase, Ken


Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)
Quin, Ms Joyce


Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)
Radice, Giles


Jamieson, David
Randall, Stuart


Janner, Greville
Raynsford, Nick


Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)
Redmond, Martin


Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)
Reid, Dr John


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)
Robertson, George (Hamilton)


Jowell, Tessa
Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)


Keen, Alan
Roche, Mrs. Barbara


Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)
Rogers, Allan 

Khabra, Piara S.
Rooker, Jeff


Leighton, Ron
Rooney, Terry


Lestor, Joan (Eccles)
Rowlands, Ted


Lewis, Terry
Ruddock, Joan


Litherland, Robert
Salmond, Alex


Livingstone, Ken
Sedgemore, Brian


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Sheerman, Barry


Loyden, Eddie
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


McAllion, John
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


McAvoy, Thomas
Short, Clare



McCartney, Ian
Simpson, Alan


Macdonald, Calum
Skinner, Dennis


McFall, John
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


McGrady, Eddie
Smith, C. (Isl'ton S & F'sbury)


McKelvey, William
Smith, Rt Hon John (M'kl'ds E)


Mackinlay, Andrew
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


McLeish, Henry
Snape, Peter


McMaster, Gordon
Spearing, Nigel


McNamara, Kevin
Spellar, John


McWilliam, John
Steinberg, Gerry


Madden, Max
Stevenson, George


Mahon, Alice
Stott, Roger


Mandelson, Peter
Strang, Dr. Gavin


Marek, Dr John
Straw, Jack


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)


Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)
Tipping, Paddy



Martlew, Eric
Turner, Dennis


Maxton, John
Vaz, Keith


Meacher, Michael
Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold


Meale, Alan
Walley, Joan


Michael, Alun
Warden, Gareth (Gower)


Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Wareing, Robert N


Milburn, Alan
Watson, Mike


Miller, Andrew
Welsh, Andrew


Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)
Wicks, Malcolm


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)


Morgan, Rhodri
Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)


Morley, Elliot
Wilson, Brian


Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)
Winnick, David


Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Wise, Audrey



Mowlam, Marjorie
Worthington, Tony


Mudie, George
Wray, Jimmy


Mullin, Chris
Wright, Dr Tony


Murphy, Paul
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon



O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)
Tellers for the Noes:


O'Brien, William (Normanton)
Mr. Jon Owen Jones and 


O'Hara, Edward
Mr. Peter Kilfoyle.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Clause 4

INFORMATION FOR COMMISSION

Amendment made: No. 48, in page 2, line 10, leave out from second 'or to 'information' in line 11 and insert
'the Treaty establishing the European Community'.—[Mr. Gard-Jones.]

Clause 5

COMMENCEMENT (PROTOCOL ON SOCIAL POLICY)

Amendment proposed: No. 45, in page 2, line 16, leave out 'the House of Commons' and insert 'each House of Parliament'.—[Mr. Garel-Jones]

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 308, Noes 264.

Division No. 258]
[7.47 pm


AYES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Cope, Rt Hon Sir John


Aitken, Jonathan
Cormack, Patrick


Alexander, Richard
Couchman, James


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)


Alton, David
Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)


Amess, David
Dafis, Cynog


Ancram, Michael
Davies, Quentin (Stamford)


Arbuthnot, James
Davis, David (Boothferry)


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Day, Stephen


Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)
Deva, Nirj Joseph


Ashby, David
Devlin, Tim


Aspinwall, Jack
Dickens, Geoffrey


Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)
Dicks, Terry


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Dorrell, Stephen


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James



Baldry, Tony
Dover, Den


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Duncan, Alan


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Duncan-Smith, Iain


Bates, Michael
Dunn, Bob


Batiste, Spencer
Durant, Sir Anthony


Beith, Rt Hon A. J.
Dykes, Hugh


Bellingham, Henry
Eggar, Tim


Beresford, Sir Paul
Elletson, Harold


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)


Body, Sir Richard
Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)


Booth, Hartley
Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)


Boswell, Tim
Evans, Roger (Monmouth)


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Evennett, David


Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia
Faber, David


Bowden, Andrew
Fabricant, Michael


Bowis, John
Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas


Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes
Fenner, Dame Peggy


Brandreth, Gyles
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)


Brazier, Julian
Fishburn, Dudley


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Forman, Nigel


Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Browning, Mrs. Angela
Forth, Eric


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Foster, Don (Bath)


Budgen, Nicholas
Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman


Burns, Simon
Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)


Burt, Alistair
Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)


Butler, Peter
Freeman, Roger


Butterfill, John
French, Douglas


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Gale, Roger


Carlisle, John (Luton North)
Gallie, Phil


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan


Carrington, Matthew
Garnier, Edward


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Gillan, Cheryl


Churchill, Mr
Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair


Clappison, James
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Coe, Sebastian
Gorst, John


Colvin, Michael
Grant, Sir Anthony (Cambs SW)


Congdon, David
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Conway, Derek
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Grylls, Sir Michael






Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn
Mates, Michael


Hague. William
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie (Epsom)
Mellor, Rt Hon David


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Merchant, Piers


Hampson, Dr Keith
Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)


Hannam, Sir John
Milligan, Stephen



Hargreaves, Andrew
Mills, Iain


Harris, David
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Haselhurst, Alan
Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)


Hawkins, Nick
Moate, Sir Roger


Hayes, Jerry
Monro, Sir Hector


Heald, Oliver
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward
Moss, Malcolm


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Nelson, Anthony


Hendry, Charles
Neubert, Sir Michael


Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Hicks, Robert
Nicholls, Patrick


Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Hill, James (Southampton Test)
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)


Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)
Norris, Steve


Horam, John
Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley


Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Oppenheim, Phillip


Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Ottaway, Richard


Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)
Page, Richard


Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)
Paice, James


Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)
Patnick, Irvine


Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)
Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Pawsey, James


Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)
Pickles, Eric


Hunter, Andrew
Porter, Barry (Wirral S)


Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Powell, William (Corby)


Jack, Michael
Rathbone, Tim


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Redwood, John


Johnston, Sir Russell
Renton, Rt Hon Tim


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Richards, Rod


Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)
Riddick, Graham


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm


Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Robathan, Andrew


Key, Robert
Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn


Kilfedder, Sir James
Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)


King, Rt Hon Tom
Robinson, Mark (Somerton)


Kirkhope, Timothy
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


Kirkwood, Archy
Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)


Knapman, Roger
Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela


Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)
Ryder, Rt Hon Richard


Knight, Greg (Derby N)
Sackville, Tom


Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)
Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim


Knox, David
Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas


Kynoch, George (Kincardine)
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian


Lamont, Rt Hon Norman
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Lang, Rt Hon Ian
Shersby, Michael


Lawrence, Sir Ivan
Sims, Roger


Leigh, Edward
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Lennox-Boyd, Mark
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)
Soames, Nicholas


Lidington, David
Speed, Sir Keith


Lightbown, David
Spencer, Sir Derek


Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Llwyd, Elfyn
Spink, Dr Robert


Lord, Michael
Spring, Richard


Luff, Peter
Sproat, Iain


Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)


Lynne, Ms Liz
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Steel, Rt Hon Sir David


MacKay, Andrew
Steen, Anthony


Maclean, David
Stephen, Michael


McLoughlin, Patrick
Stern, Michael


Madel, David
Stewart, Allan


Maitland, Lady Olga
Streeter, Gary


Major, Rt Hon John
Sumberg, David


Malone, Gerald
Sweeney, Walter


Mans, Keith
Sykes, John


Marland, Paul
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Marlow, Tony
Taylor, John M. (Solihull)


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)
Temple-Morris, Peter


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Thomason, Roy





Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)
Waterson, Nigel


Thornton, Sir Malcolm
Watts, John


Thurnham, Peter
Wells, Bowen


Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)
Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John


Tracey, Richard
Whitney, Ray


Tredinnick, David
Widdecombe, Ann


Trend, Michael
Wiggin, Sir Jerry


Trotter, Neville
Wigley, Dafydd


Twinn, Dr Ian
Willetts, David


Tyler, Paul
Wilshire, David


Vaughan, Sir Gerard
Wolfson, Mark


Viggers, Peter
Yeo, Tim


Waldegrave, Rt Hon William
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Walden, George



Wallace, James
Tellers for the Ayes:


Waller, Gary
Mr. Sydney Chapman and Mr. Timothy Wood.


Ward, John





NOES



Abbott, Ms Diane
Cunliffe, Lawrence


Adams, Mrs Irene
Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)


Ainger, Nick
Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Dalyell, Tam


Allen, Graham
Darling, Alistair


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Davidson, Ian


Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)
Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)


Armstrong, Hilary
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Ashton, Joe
Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)


Austin-Walker, John
Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'I)


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Denham, John


Barnes, Harry
Dewar, Donald


Barron, Kevin
Dixon, Don


Battle, John
Dobson, Frank


Bayley, Hugh
Donohoe, Brian H.


Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret
Dowd, Jim


Bell, Stuart
Dunnachie, Jimmy


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth


Bennett, Andrew F.
Eagle. Ms Angela


Benton, Joe
Eastham, Ken


Bermingham, Gerald
Enright, Derek


Berry, Dr. Roger
Etherington, Bill


Betts, Clive
Ewing, Mrs Margaret


Blair, Tony
Fatchett, Derek


Blunkett, David
Faulds, Andrew


Boateng, Paul
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)


Boyce, Jimmy
Fisher, Mark


Boyes, Roland
Flynn, Paul


Bradley, Keith
Foster, Rt Hon Derek


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Foulkes, George


Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)
Fraser, John


Brown, N. (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)
Fyfe, Maria


Burden, Richard
Galbraith, Sam


Byers, Stephen
Galloway, George


Caborn, Richard
Gapes, Mike


Callaghan, Jim
Garrett, John


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
George, Bruce


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Gerrard, Neil


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John


Canavan, Dennis
Godman, Dr Norman A.


Cann, Jamie
Godsift, Roger


Chisholm, Malcolm
Golding, Mrs Llin


Clapham, Michael
Graham, Thomas


Clark, Dr David (South Shields)
Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Clelland, David
Grocott, Bruce


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Gunnell, John


Cotfey, Ann
Hain, Peter


Cohen, Harry
Hall, Mike


Connarty, Michael
Hanson, David


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Hardy, Peter


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Harman, Ms Harriet


Corbett, Robin
Henderson, Doug


Corbyn, Jeremy
Heppell, John


Corston, Ms Jean
Hill, Keith (Streatham)


Cousins, Jim
Hinchliffe, David


Cox, Tom
Hoey, Kate


Cryer, Bob
Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)


Cummings, John
Home Robertson, John






Hood, Jimmy
O'Neill. Martin


Hoon, Geoffrey
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Parry, Robert


Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)
Pendry, Tom


Hoyle, Doug
Pickthall, Colin


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Pike, Peter L.


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Pope, Greg


Hughes, Roy (Newport E)
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Hume, John
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)


Hutton, John
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Illsley, Eric
Prescott, John


Ingram, Adam
Primarolo, Dawn


Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)
Purchase, Ken


Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)
Quin, Ms Joyce


Jamieson, David
Radice, Giles


Janner, Greville
Randall, Stuart


Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)
Raynsford, Nick


Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)
Redmond, Martin


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)
Reid, Dr John


Jowell, Tessa
Robertson, George (Hamilton)


Keen, Alan
Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)


Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)
Roche, Mrs. Barbara


Khabra, Piara S.
Rogers, Allan


Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil (Islwyn)
Rooker, Jeff


Leighton, Ron
Rooney, Terry


Lestor, Joan (Eccles)
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Lewis, Terry
Rowlands, Ted


Litherland, Robert
Ruddock, Joan


Livingstone, Ken
Salmond, Alex


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Sedgemore, Brian


Loyden, Eddie
Sheerman, Barry


McAllion, John
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


McAvoy, Thomas
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


McCartney, Ian
Short, Clare


Macdonald, Calum
Simpson, Alan


McFall, John
Skinner, Dennis


McGrady, Eddie
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


McKelvey, William
Smith, C. (Isl'ton S & F'sbury)


Mackinlay, Andrew
Smith, Rt Hon John (M'kl'ds E)


McLeish, Henry
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


McMaster, Gordon
Snape, Peter


McNamara, Kevin
Soley, Clive


McWilliam, John
Spearing, Nigel


Madden, Max
Spellar, John


Mahon, Alice
Steinberg, Gerry


Mandelson, Peter
Stevenson, George


Marek, Dr John
Stott, Roger


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Strang, Dr. Gavin


Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)
Straw, Jack


Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Martlew, Eric
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)


Maxton, John
Tipping, Paddy


Meacher, Michael
Turner, Dennis


Meale, Alan
Vaz, Keith


Michael, Alun
Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold


Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Walley, Joan


Milburn, Alan
Warden, Gareth (Gower)


Miller, Andrew
Wareing, Robert N


Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)
Watson, Mike


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Welsh, Andrew

 Morgan, Rhodri
Wicks, Malcolm


Morley, Elliot
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)


Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)
Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

 Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)
Wilson, Brian


Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Winnick, David


Mowlam, Marjorie
Wise, Audrey


Mudie, George
Worthington, Tony


Mullin, Chris
Wray, Jimmy


Murphy, Paul
Wright, Dr Tony


Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Young, David (Bolton SE)


O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)



O'Brien, William (Normanton)
Tellers for the Noes:


O'Hara, Edward
Mr. Jon Owen Jones


Olner, William
and Mr. Peter Kilfoyle.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Bill to be read the Third time tomorrow.

Debt-collecting Agencies

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Arbuthnot.]

8 pm

Mr. Donald Anderson: I am delighted to be able to speak to my Adjournment debate at such an early hour of the evening, and not much later as I had originally anticipated. I am also delighted to see the Paymaster General in his place. The issue that I want to raise concerns the Government's employment of private bailiffs for the purpose of debt collection. The number of bailiffs and the companies that they represent have mushroomed during the recession. My aim is to expose some of the difficulties and injustices and to urge the Government to respond positively to them.
As a starting point, I concede that some of the problems that I am about to detail also arise when local authorities employ private bailiffs to collect business rates or other debts. I shall rely heavily on investigative journalism, namely, the investigations carried out by HTV, the results of which were contained in its "Wales This Week" programme on 25 February. I want to pay a well-deserved tribute to the quality of the work done by the members of the HTV team—especially Chris Segar, the interviewer—for their commitment to revealing what, in my judgment, should be a major cause of public concern.
I accept the case for bailiffs—someone has to carry out work that is, by its very nature, distasteful because of its effects on both individuals and business people, who try, often against the odds, to keep their businesses afloat.

Mr. Bob Cryer: My hon. Friend is fortunate to have such a long time for his Adjournment debate. In referring to business people, he is surely talking about small businesses that find themselves in difficulty. The big fry always seem to get away with everything. I doubt whether my hon. Friend will say anything about bailiffs going to get money from Asil Nadir—a man heavily in debt not only to businesses, but to the Tory party. It is a shame that my hon. Friend cannot say tonight that bailiffs were sent round to Nadir's place before he flew out of the country.

Mr. Anderson: My hon. Friend raises a new dimension. I think of the words of Ernest Bevin, "When you open the Pandora's box all sorts of Trojan horses come out." Much as I am tempted to go down the path suggested by my hon. Friend, I shall instead confine myself to talking about a number of small businesses that have suffered through the operations of private bailiffs.
I readily concede that enforcement can be effective only if there are sanctions. I accept that whenever there is a forced sale the financial returns, simply by the very nature of the transaction, inevitably will be lower than they would have been in a normal market sale. However, I submit that the HTV revelations show that the public interest and the interest of the debtor are frequently overridden in practice.
The Government should not seek to evade responsibility for the effect of the actions of their agents. After all, Customs and Excise and other Government Departments employ people, who act in the name of the Government, to collect debts that are due and owing to the Government. The Government's responsibility should not end at the point when they put enforcement in the hands of agents and delegate certain functions to them.
The HTV revelations show that, in some cases, the Government's agents sell distrained goods down back alleys, in shady places, at ridiculous prices. The public interest is not served, the interests of the debtors are not served and, indeed, the interests of the Government are not served by that practice because the return to, for example, Customs and Excise is very small indeed. The only individuals who benefit from such transactions are the several agents at the points of distrainment, removal and auction. The practice has the makings of a scandal and I urge the Government to investigate and to take appropriate action.
The HTV programme focused on three cases, which I shall use only as examples. I am glad to see the hon. Member for Monmouth (Mr. Evans) in his place because the first case relates to a late constituent of his. It is a tragic case involving John Herbert of Abergavenny, a local family business well known in the area, which had existed almost from the start of the century. Mr. Herbert shot himself in February when agents acting on behalf of Torfaen borough council stripped his furniture store because he owed business rates of £33,000.
As a result of that distrainment, five people are out of work and a family business of longstanding and repute which, alas, had over-extended itself during the recession, has closed. Clearly, I cannot comment on whether the local authority acted responsibly and used its discretion properly, but the tragic results are clear. There is some evidence that in this case, and, more particularly, in the other two cases to which I shall refer, the details of the sale were not properly advertised.
The second and third cases raised in the HTV programme are relevant to the enforcement operation by Customs and Excise for VAT debts. The second case is that of Peter Morgan of Swansea, builders' merchants, who owed £33,000 in VAT. A warrant for distrainment was signed by a VAT official and bailiffs distrained goods of a retail value of £67,000. The debtor took a careful inventory of the goods that had been taken and alleges that the bailiffs handled the goods roughly and took only a rough-and-ready inventory of the goods. Those goods, with a retail value of £67,000, realised only £2,000 at auction. Of that, Customs and Excise was paid £900. Peter Morgan's debt remains. The prices realised at the auction were astonishingly low. For example, 250 doors were sold for a total price of £l.
Tim Jones, a local solicitor of some standing in the City, gave impressive evidence to the HTV programme. The advertisement for the auction gave no address for it, only the name Roach and Company, and it gave no details of the nature of the goods to be auctioned, so the ordinary member of the public, interested in builders' materials or do-it-yourself for the home, would not have been attracted to the sale.
The auction was carried out by a body called Revenue Collection Services, which the solicitor could not trace in the Registrar of Companies or contact by telephone. The programme illustrated an attempt by its producers to contact the company with only a mobile phone number. Clearly, there was hardly any attempt by those responsible for the auction to advertise it to the general public.
The third case is that of Richard Jenkins of Swansea who owned a small business. That business owed £3,000 in

VAT to the Customs and Excise and business rates of roughly £20,000. It claimed that it had sought to pay by instalments but had been refused. The majority of the stock was taken and, again, roughly handled into a van. The business said that the retail value of the stock taken was £40,000 and, again, roughly only £2,000 was realised. From that £2,000, £580 was paid for the removals.
The family of Richard Jenkins of Swansea discovered by chance that the auction was to take place in a seedy back street of Cardiff. Of particular interest is the fact that the family, having learnt the location of the auction, attended it and recognised the bailiffs who had taken the goods. They say that few members of the public, if any, were present. Clearly, in those circumstances, the goods were unlikely to obtain the best price.
The family also allege that the bailiffs were clearly well known to the auctioneer. In between sales, there were a number of conversations between the bailiffs and the auctioneer. The auction took place at the premises of RCS, which is linked to the bailiffs, being the holding company of the bailiffs, Roach and Company. Again, the solicitor, Mr. Tim Jones, could not trace the company at Companies House.
There is a chain from the bailiffs, through to the removal people and the auctioneers, showing the clear dangers of a cosy and possibly corrupt relationship between each link, potentially acting against the public interest.
Revenue Collection Services, or a similar name, was found by the programme compilers at the premises of Roach and Company in Bristol. The managing director was photographed at the auction, which was attended by the programme compilers. There must clearly be a suspicion that the company was exposing and exploiting the looseness of the present controls on the Government agents in this respect.
What points arise from those cases? First, there is the danger of an interrelationship between each link in the chain. Clearly, far from being secret, the auctions should be properly advertised so that members of the general public who wish to attend can do so. It may be too that a reserve price should be set as 250 doors should not be sold for £1.
It is questionable whether those irresponsible—in the full sense of the word—agents are serving the public interest. There are clearly substantial risks of corruption when there is a total lack of monitoring by the Government or any other agency of what is done in such cases.
I shall submit later that the dangers are aggravated by the new privatisation proposals for Customs and Excise. There is no complaints procedure, no investigation procedure and no appeal procedure to investigate the behaviour of agents acting on behalf of their principals—in this case the Customs and Excise.
I am glad that there is evidence that the Government recognise some of the problems that have arisen, but they are extremely slow to respond. I read with interest the consultation document published by the Lord Chancellor's Department in August last year headed "A Review of the Organisation and Management of Civil Enforcement Appeals". In that consultation document, the Lord Chancellor's Department says that the system is "ripe for change". In paragraph 5.1 it is said that there are


"compelling reasons for change". The interested citizen would say that the Government have taken the problem on board and are willing to address it with some urgency.
This afternoon, as a member of the Select Committee on Home Affairs, I had the good fortune to be able to question senior officials, including the permanent secretary of the Lord Chancellor's Department, on the progress of the consultation document. I was told by the relevant senior official that the Government had received a large number of responses to the consultation document, that they were being evaluated and that, as a result of those responses, the Lord Chancellor's Department would need to embark on yet another consultation process on a more specific basis.
In the consultation document we are advised that legislation will be necessary to put right the potential abuses that the Government have readily recognised. If legislation is necessary, when might it come about? If there is to be another consultation process, clearly it Hill miss the boat in the next Session of Parliament beginning in November 1993.
The earliest opportunity for legislation to he put before the House would be in the parliamentary Session 1994–95 and that will depend on the Lord Chancellor's Department's good fortune in finding a place in a Session that is coming perilously close to an election. This is clearly not a major area of partisan interest.
It is very likely that, having recognised the compelling need for change and the injustices that may arise from the current position, the Government will allow matters to drift for several years while those injustices continue to be suffered by individual business people. That should not be allowed to happen. Even if the Paymaster General concedes—as I think he must—that the Government will not introduce the necessary legislation for at least two or three years, I hope that he will tell us that the Government will seek to end the abuses, and to prevent the exploitation of business misfortunes, in the interim period before such legislation is in force.
Having acknowledged the existence of compelling reasons for change and public concern about the lack of regulation of private bailiffs, the consultation document stresses that any system must be cost effective. Given that less than £1,000 was realised on a VAT debt of £30,000, the system clearly was not cost effective in that instance.
The Government concede that there is a lack of general statutory control over the fees charged by agents. Perhaps a strict table should be drawn up showing the fees that are relevant in each case; perhaps a general professional or trade body should be established to regulate the performance and behaviour of bailiffs, including those who act on behalf of the Government, granting certificates only to those of good standing and character and ensuring that certain professional standards are maintained in the enforcement of civil debts. It is also clear that the Government have not carried out adequate supervision.
I believe objectively—on the basis of the examples that have been given and, indeed, on the basis of the Government's concessions and admissions in their consultation paper—that the position is now very unsatisfactory. It is likely to be made even worse, and the temptations are likely to increase, as a result of action that the Government are likely to take soon. That action may well move the position even further away from public accountability, unless the change to a privatised system is coupled with stringent safeguards.
Those dealing with the VAT side of Customs and Excise who give orders to bailiffs may be privatised in the next steps programme that is currently under way. It is conceded that that is relevant to the part of the Customs and Excise operation that covers south Wales and the borders—the south Wales and the borders VAT debt collection management services. A decision from the Government is expected in December.
It is interesting to note that the Roach Group—which has figured largely in the examples that I have given, and which also figured in the HTV programme—was taken over last year by the Capita Group. Capita is a respectable company, which does finance work on behalf of Kensington and Chelsea borough council and has set up an accountancy firm in the white-collar section of the market; it is now trying to move into the blue-collar section, dealing with debt collection. It has expressed an interest in tendering for the contract for the work currently done by civil servants in Customs and Excise: there is 'thus a danger that the work involved in such enforcement will become even further removed from public control, and further outside the public domain.
We need greater accountability, and a separation of the different stages of the operation. The auctions must cease to be secret, and the public need to feel confident that the agents employed by the Government are acting responsibly. Do the Government accept that something needs to be done in the interim before the necessary legislation is introduced—that is, over the next three or four years? Are they prepared to do anything to prevent potential abuses, and to prevent the cosy relationship between bailiffs and auctioneers that is currently possible? If they are not, the abuses that have been revealed will he allowed to continue.
I suggest that, in the interim, the Government resume a former practice, and allow Customs and Excise officials to carry out spot checks on auctions. Clearly they have contracts with their agents, the bailiffs; under those contracts, they could insist—on a normal commercial basis—that all sales of distrained goods are properly advertised to the general public. That, by definition, is more likely to lead to an adequate return from the sale, and less likely to tempt people to enrich themselves at the expense of a business and an adequate return to Customs and Excise.
Are the Government happy about what is being done in their name by agents? If they are not—and the evidence suggests that they may not be—they should not wait several years for legislation; they should take action now.
I accept that the revelations in the HTV programme may not tell the whole truth, given the nature of the operations available to the journalists and television investigators involved. I accept that there may have been some exaggeration; I accept that those revelations may not have been accurate in every detail. Surely, however, the Government will support a view buttressed by a well-respected solicitor in the city of Swansea. If they accept that the revelations in the programme are substantially true, surely they must now act before more business men are fleeced in the same way—before we see further examples of the public interest not being served, and of business men going to the wall purely to benefit those who purport to act in the name of Government, and as Government's agents.

Mr. Roger Evans: In Monmouthshire, the full horror of this unhappy issue was brought home by the tragic case of Mr. John Herbert, which was mentioned by the hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson).
It is, of course, public Departments that have the widest powers of distraint and the most privileged position in insolvency. That is why we see more examples of public Departments abusing those powers than ordinary litigants. The fact remains, however, that enforcement against personal chattels, whether it be by a Government Department, Torfaen or a private litigant, brings us into that extraordinary Dickensian, murky world of bailiffs and auctions in back streets. The picture is every bit as appalling as anything that Charles Dickens depicted—of landlords seizing the last sticks of furniture.
This has gone on for far too long. There may be all sorts of arguments for altering the law on enforcement. There may also be all sorts of interesting arguments as to whether the position of Customs and Excise should be quite as privileged as it is in the case of insolvency. However, the simple, practical question that business men are asking is whether something can be done immediately to improve standards and the way in which the system operates. There should not be conflicts of interest whereby bailiffs and auctioneers are in any way connected.
It may be that the existing law could resolve that problem, but people who are going bust are not the people most likely to litigate. We need a system under which much higher standards are required of bailiffs, with much stricter supervision of them. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Paymaster General can give us some good news about what may be done.

The Paymaster General (Sir John Cope): There are two parts to what the hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) and my hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth (Mr. Evans) said which I shall do my best to try to unravel and deal with separately.
The first part relates to the general law and rules that apply to bailiffs, particularly private bailiffs. Those rules are the responsibility of the Lord Chancellor. The second part relates to the operation of the procedures by Customs and Excise in the case of value added tax. That is a more limited aspect of the question for which I have ministerial responsibility in the Treasury, under my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
I shall say a few words about matters that are not my direct responsibility. I refer to the consultation paper, to which the hon. Gentleman drew attention, issued by the Lord Chancellor's Department in August 1992 on the employment of private bailiffs for distress work. That paper covers the law and practice in England and Wales. In Scotland, the law is different in certain respects. Some of the proposals in the consultation document would bring the law and practice in England and Wales nearer to the arrangements in Scotland, which were revised much more recently than those for England and Wales by a recent Act of Parliament.
The paper sought views on whether changes should be made to the organisation and management of bailiffs in the civil enforcement process, the part that the state should play in the organisation and management of bailiffs, the ways in which any changes to the organisation and

management of bailiffs could be achieved, and whether any changes to the law governing their work were necessary or desirable.
The hon. Gentleman referred to private bailiffs. There are two types of private bailiff: certificated private bailiffs and non-certificated, plain private bailiffs who are not certificated by the courts.

Mr. Anderson: I understand that the distinction means very little in practice. It is a certificate in respect of road traffic matters. There is no difference in terms of the controls on those bailiffs.

Sir John Cope: It is about rent as well as road traffic matters, but there is another important difference to which I shall turn in a few moments. It was shown that the appointment of certificated bailiffs, as set out in the consultation paper, is subject to varying degrees of regulation by statute, but that there is little statutory control over private bailiffs who are not certificated. The law governing their activities is unclear.
The important distinction, from my point of view, is that Customs and Excise, as a matter of practice, use only certificated bailiffs. That gives Customs and Excise an extra leverage over those whom it employs for this purpose. It is not for me to anticipate what the Lord Chancellor's proposals might be when the consultation period is concluded. It may, however, be worth quoting from the consultation document in order to give the flavour of the Lord Chancellor's approach.
Paragraph 4.4 says:
The Lord Chancellor believes that all civil enforcement agents should be subject to some form of control over their appointment and that there should be some control over how they do their job, in that they must be subject to disciplinary arrangements if they fail to meet whatever minimum standards of competence and conduct are deemed necessary. There is much room for debate on what these controls and minimum standards should be, and the next section of the paper will consider the various options for change.
The Lord Chancellor welcomed the expression of views. I shall draw my noble Friend's attention to what the hon. Gentleman said about the urgency, as he sees it, of addressing these general points regarding the law and the courts' activities relating to bailiffs.
I intend to deal specifically with matters for which I have personal responsibility—the management of Customs and Excise, and, in particular, the use by Customs and Excise of certificated bailiffs. It may help if I outline the general approach of Customs and Excise to collecting VAT.
VAT-registered traders are required to pay the correct tax at the correct time. They are obliged to render and pay their VAT returns by the due date—usually one month following the end of the VAT return period which, in the majority of cases, is three months. If traders do not submit their returns, an assessment is issued. Where either a VAT return is rendered but not paid, or an assessment is issued but is then not paid, a debt is established and recovery action is required.
The vast majority of traders pay their VAT on time, but some do not. It is important that those who pay on time are not put at a disadvantage compared with those who do not. All must be treated equitably. It is in the interests of those traders who pay on time that, among other things, Customs and Excise should collect the debts from those


who do not pay on time. The prime responsibility of Customs and Excise is to collect the right tax at the right time.
VAT is collected by each registered business from its customers, and Customs and Excise has to collect it properly from each business. A business that delays payment gains a commercial advantage over its competitors. While Customs and Excise is prepared to be as helpful as possible when businesses find themselves in unexpected difficulties, it is rightly criticised, not least by the Public Accounts Committee of this House and others, if it does not carry out its responsibility firmly arid fairly within the regulations approved by Parliament.
It is worthing quoting some of the conclusions of this year's Public Accounts Committee's hearing on the subject. The Committee said:
We note the Department's assurance that they have now stabilised the VAT arrears position. It is important that the further measures now being introduced lead to a significant reduction in arrears in the future…We recognise that the Department's primary responsibility is to collect the revenue.
I am sure that the hon. Member for Swansea, East and my hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth will appreciate that Customs has that primary obligation to protect Government revenue. At the same time, however——

Mr. Anderson: I accept that it is the primary responsibility of Customs to collect revenues that are due and owing, but is it the Minister's contention that his Department's responsibility ends at that point and that it has no responsibility for the position thereafter?

Sir John Cope: No, I certainly do not contend that. As I shall explain, the bailiffs act as agents of Customs and Excise in carrying out their duties, as do the auctioneers and so on. But we try, and have tried—particularly at a time of recession—to take account of the fact that businesses are experiencing difficulties. It is not, of course, an easy balance for the Customs and Excise to strike but it has to do it every day—it is doing it all the time.
We need as sympathetic an approach as possible subject to the primary responsibility to collect the revenue. What was called the enforcement division has recently changed its name to the debt management division. That indicates a change of attitude. In addition, that division is working through an action programme putting into effect the recommendations of an efficiency unit scrutiny to improve the debt management process.
There are a couple of measures in this year's Finance Bill which will help in that regard and which we shall debate in due course. I refer to the bad debt relief provisions, which reduce the time limit to six months, and to the changes in the VAT penalties. Those measures indicate a positive response to the changes that we are making in the matter of debt management generally.
Once a debt has been established, Customs issues a written demand and gives fair warning of the consequences of failure to pay. The time from the establishment of a debt to the warning letter—during which many people pay—is typically about six weeks. The local VAT office then decides how best to set about recovering the debt if it has not been paid. The decision will be based on the particular circumstances and particular information available about the individual trader.
In the majority of cases, traders have sufficient goods or assets to justify distraint action against them. But if there are no assets either known to exist or discovered on a visit,

action through the courts—for example, bankruptcy or liquidation—may be considered, although that is very much a last resort, to be used after other processes have been exhausted.
The position of Customs and the Inland Revenue is different from that of other creditors. I draw that to the attention of my hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth in particular, as he referred to the privileges of the Revenue departments in their position as creditors. Unlike the commercial sector, neither Customs nor the Inland Revenue can choose its customers. Both are therefore involuntary creditors. They do not have available to them the normal commercial practices such as the withholding of supplies to ensure that a debt does not rise further. As long as a trader is trading, his VAT debt is likely to be increasing. The same is true in respect of debt to the Inland Revenue.
As a result, in some cases, insolvency or distraint can be the only recourse to prevent a VAT debt from rising through the trader's being allowed to carry on trading. There is a big difference in the relative positions of a commercial creditor or a bank—which probably has various charges against assets and so on on which it can call and other actions available to it—and the Revenue departments.
In addition to issuing the warning letter, staff al the local VAT office may telephone or visit to attempt to recover the debt. Requests for time in which to settle debts are considered and sometimes agreed to. Customs will consider realistic offers of instalments right up to the time at which any order is made in court for bankruptcy. During 1991–92 there was a 52 per cent. increase in the number of time-to-pay agreements and a 70 per cent. increase in their overall value, which was, of course, a response to the problems of the recession.
If payment is not forthcoming, a distress warrant will be issued by a senior executive officer in the local VAT office. The warrant directs an authorised person, who is a named individual and usually a bailiff—although he can be a Customs officer—to visit the trader and, where necessary, levy distraint on goods. The trader is given an opportunity to pay the debt before such a levy commences.
A walking possession agreement is a legal document, with an undertaking signed by the trader, which allows him to retain the goods distrained for a period of time—usually 15 days and perhaps longer—in exchange for the goods not being removed, sold or otherwise disposed of. The effect of such a walking possession agreement is to give the trader additional time to settle the debt and the costs which are by then beginning to be added to it. At the expiry of the walking possession agreement, if the debt and costs are not settled, the goods are removed for sale.
If the debtor pays the debt and the costs at that stage, the goods are not removed or can be returned. Where it is necessary to proceed to a sale, the goods are removed to a place of storage—usually an auction room—and advertised for sale by public auction. That is the process to which the hon. Member for Swansea, East drew particular attention. It is not a process that is as uncontrolled as he suggested. The VAT (General) Regulations 1985 require that goods distrained upon are sold by public auction. We require that they are properly advertised for sale and appraised before that happens.

Mr. Anderson: The Minister said that Customs requires and ensures that proper advertisement is made. Is he


saying that the case in which only a mobile telephone number was given, and in which there was no address, no means of contact and no specific description of the goods for sale, was a one-off—or does it expose a general fault in the system?

Sir John Cope: I shall deal with the details of that case a little later. I want to deal first with the general position, and hope to reassure the hon. Gentleman that the position is not quite as unsound as he may think.
At the sale, both the general public and the trader himself can bid for the goods. The trader is informed about when the sale will take place. That enables him to attend and monitor—or, if he wishes, to bid.
That whole process is quite an effective means of recovering VAT debt. In the year to December 1992 some 407,000 written demands were issued. More than half of those prompted payment without further action, but 186,000 distress visits followed when payments had not been made. Of those, only 27,900 required distress to be levied and a large proportion paid as a result, so that only 1,242 cases continued to sale. That was 0·3 per cent. of the cases for which a written demand was issued.
As the hon. Gentleman realises, it is important that bailiffs who act for Customs should be properly selected. They are selected by local management only from those certified by the county court and believed by the local Customs and Excise to be capable of dealing with VAT debts. Most have experience and provide a service for us frequently, but they are employed on a flexible basis which allows local management to choose alternatives, should the standard of service decline or be unsatisfactory, or should practices be entered into which they do not approve of.
All bailiffs working alone on VAT debt recovery have been issued with written guidance on how to proceed. It is not generally the policy of the Department now for officers to accompany bailiffs in the course of their work, although that happens sometimes. If a certified bailiff fails to perform his duties to a satisfactory standard, two things can happen. First, the local VAT office monitors the performance of the bailiff and draws attention to any shortcomings which it observes, so the sanction is that the bailiff may lose his work for Customs and Excise. Secondly, if the bailiff still fails to perform his duties to a satisfactory standard, the court can withdraw the certificate which allows him to do other work.
In the case highlighted by the hon. Gentleman, he accepted that the television programme may not have given a 100 per cent. accurate impression, but I do not want to get involved in quibbling about details. As a result of the programme, the local VAT office examined the actions of the bailiff company concerned and found that some at any rate of the allegations were unfounded. In the light of what the hon. Gentleman has said, I shall call for further reports to follow up the concerns which remain about that case.
In general, it is not uncommon for auction firms to be associated with firms of bailiffs. However, collusion between an auctioneer and a buyer—the nub of the mischief to which the hon. Gentleman and the programme apparently drew attention—is illegal and against normal commercial law. It is not a matter primarily for Customs, except where auctioneers or bailiffs are acting as its agents,

but where there were indications of such practices, Customs would bring that to the attention of the appropriate authorities. The hon. Gentleman suggested that there was no monitoring or insufficient monitoring of the process, but Customs attempts to carry out monitoring.

Mr. Anderson: Can the Minister confirm that practice has changed, and that for the past three or four years Customs officials have not attended auctions?

Sir John Cope: No. From time to time Customs officials attend auctions, sometimes making their presence known and sometimes observing the auction as members of the general public. That is how they attempt to monitor what happens.
I should make clear too that the fees which are charged, and which incidentally are recoverable from the debtor, are in accordance with a scale set out as part of the VAT (General) Regulations 1985. They are printed on the distress documents. Sometimes special action has to be taken for which a special fee is agreed, but the basic fee for the basic service is laid down. Bailiffs do not retain their fees from the proceeds of sale or any money paid on account. All the money is paid to the local VAT office, and the bailiff sends in a bill for his services. The office checks the accuracy of the bill before payment.
There is a difficulty about prices realised at public auction. The hon. Gentleman acknowledged, as I know from experience, that the value of articles can vary according to different circumstances. It is required that goods are sold at public auction and, in the absence of evidence of collusion and of improper practices, Customs have to be satisfied with the amount raised. From time to time, Customs officials attend auctions to ensure that goods are properly handled. Of course, further use of auctioneers and/or bailiffs depends on their findings. Specialist auctioneers are used when certain goods, such as commercial vehicles or machinery, are being sold.
The HTV programme alleged that goods were treated carelessly and in a manner likely to cause damage. Such an approach would work against the interest of an auctioneer, because his remuneration comes from commission on the proceeds of the sale. Therefore, an auctioneer has a direct financial interest in raising as much as possible.
The hon. Gentleman also expressed concern about the possible result of market testing which, as he rightly said, is being undertaken under the Government's general market testing policy. I am not anticipating the results of market testing, but if it was decided to contract out the activity, it would be subject to a contract which laid down a detailed specification of the responsibilities of debt collectors. Policy would remain the responsibility of Customs and Excise, who would still have to ensure that the contractors carried out their duties.
In addition, Customs and Excise officials will continue to be the only people who can sign warrants. Therefore, the hon. Gentleman's description of officials who give orders to bailiffs overstated the proposals.

Mr. Anderson: Is not the Minister troubled by the danger that each stage of the process after the signing of the warrant by a Customs official will be in the hands effectively of one company? If the Capita Group is successful in its bid, it will colonise Customs and Excise and be responsible for each stage of the operation from the bailiffs through to the auctions.

Sir John Cope: That may lead to improvements in efficiency and running as well as the difficulties to which the hon. Gentleman has drawn attention. The contract is not without safeguards. I must emphasise that Customs and Excise will still remain responsible for what the contractors undertake on its behalf and will continue to monitor contracts and so on, if that is the way it goes. In addition, debt management officials will continue to be Customs and Excise officials at the warrant signing stage.
The hon. Gentleman referred to various companies. I do not want to comment on individual companies, but I understand that some changes were made in the companies involved between the time that some of the events referred to took place and the time that inquiries were made into them, which may have led to some of the difficulties.
The advertisements in the specific case identified the general type of goods that were involved, such as a photocopier, furniture and so on. There were some telephone difficulties as a result of a reorganisation—the company was moving offices at the time. All of that is not satisfactory. Nevertheless, it explains some of the matters which seem to have caused concern in the cases that were raised on the television programme.
Any decision on contracting out will be taken in the light of assessments of benefits as well as costs in terms of improved efficiency and cost savings, and ensuring that the work involved is carried out effectively. Customs are market-testing the debt management units in 11 of its 22 collections, including the one in south Wales. As the hon. Gentleman said, the result of that market testing is expected in the autumn.
Controls on the use of bailiffs and others by Customs to collect debts are not as non-existent as the hon. Gentleman suggested. However, I certainly acknowledge that it is important that the duties of bailiffs as agents of Customs and Excise, and hence the public, should be properly carried out and that the various regulations that apply to the auctioning of goods in difficult cases should be properly carried out.
All those matters are specific to the management of debt by Customs and Excise. I acknowledge that there are concerns about the general points raised in the Lord Chancellor's consultative document. As I said, I will draw them to the attention of the Lord Chancellor.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at one minute past Nine o'clock.